Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CHARTERHOUSE JAPHET BILL

Bill read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

BARNSLEY BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL

Further considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE

Secretary of State (Visit to United States)

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to further the prospects of United Kingdom equipment purchases by the United States of America.

Mr. Parris: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his recent visit to the United States of America.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Nott): During my visit to the United States last week, I had useful discussions with the United States Secretary of Defence and also with the Secretary of State. I met a number of senators, and visited the headquarters at Norfolk, Virginia, of the Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic.
I found complete identity of view with Mr. Weinberger on the need for the Alliance to remain firm in the face of the military threat we face; and to meet the agreed NATO targets, securing from this expenditure the maximum operational capability. We also agreed that we must not reduce our effort to secure a lower level of armamenton both sides by continuing to try to secure agreement with Warsaw Pact countries on realistic and verifiable measures of arms control.
On defence equipment, Mr. Weinberger and I agreed that reciprocal trade in equipment between our two countries enhances the economic strength of both the United States and the United Kingdom, and that the United Kingdom had good equipment to offer. Mr. Weinberger confirmed that there were proposals before the United States Congress to fund both the AV8B and the JP233 programmes.
The briefing I received at SACLANT provided me with a vivid description—[Interruption.]—of the immense capability in the maritime sphere, as in others, that the United States commits to the Alliance. In this, and in all ways, I was heartened—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Too long."]—by the resourcefulness and determination of the United States in its leading role in NATO.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I did not intervene when hon. Members were interrupting the Secretary of State, but it was a very long reply, although it was a reply to two questions.

Mr. Carlisle: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the United States should purchase more equipment from the United Kingdom in view of the large sums that we spend on United States equipment and the high quality of many of our products? It is especially important to urge sales now as they would support many jobs in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Nott: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. We are doing our utmost to persuade the United States to buy more defence equipment from us. There is a considerable imbalance in their favour at present. As well as discussing with Mr. Weinberger the two items that I have mentioned, we talked about Searchwater, Sting Ray, Wavell, Giant Viper, Hawk and a host of other products. I hope that we shall be successful in selling more British products to the United States in future, which will enhance employment in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Parris: Was my right hon. Friend able to say that our final decision on Trident might await the final decision of the United States on offset?

Mr. Nott: We are purchasing from the United States a ballistic missile system. I do not think that offset in the normal sense in which it is referred to is likely or relevant in that circumstance. We shall seek the maximum purchase of our equipment by the United States. The Trident missile system is something rather separate.

Mr. James Lamond: The Secretary of State always talks about identity of interest and the need to expand expenditure on arms even further. Did he bear in mind the speeches made at the United Nations special session on disarmament by the Prime Minister and the Vice-President of the United States? If so, how does he square the suggestion that we need more and more arms with the speeches made at the United Nations? Must we accept that those speeches meant nothing at all?

Mr. Nott: We follow what is said in the United Nations, but not all members of that important institution are on our side. I thought that it would save the time of the House if in my admittedly over-long answer to the first question I mentioned what had been discussed initially with Mr. Weinberger. I made a special point of emphasising that we discussed arms control in general. We agreed that it was necessary to secure agreement with Warsaw Pact countries on a lower level of armaments, on both sides, balanced with verifiable measures to control it. We both seek that.

Mr. Buck: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the House welcomes his statement, especially what he said about the possibility of purchase of arms by the United States? When will he be able to tell us more about what will happen with Sting Ray? Having just returned from America, will he confirm that our relationship with the United States is very close and special and likely to continue so to be?

Mr. Nott: Our relationship with the United States could not be warmer. I had an excellent series of talks. We were congratulated widely in the United States on our


substantial contribution to NATO. Sting Ray was mentioned in our talks and we shall be following that up in future months.

Dr. David Clark: There seems a great deal more discussion than action about equipment purchasing by the United States. Will the Minister confirm or deny that we have had notice of cancellation by the Americans of JP233? If that is correct, shall we continue to develop it on our own? If so, what will the extra cost be?

Mr. Nott: Under the last United States Administration, Congress was unwilling to vote the funds for the JP233. The present Administration have put the matter back before Congress, and we believe that it is likely to go through this time. Our own decision on JP233 is closely related to the progress which it makes through the United States Congress. It would be much better if we both agreed to have the weapon than if we decided to go it alone.

Trident Missile

Mr. Flannery: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is his latest estimate of the total cost of the Trident programme.

Mr. Nott: The figure is about £5 billion.

Mr. Flannery: Even if one accepts the theory of nuclear deterrence, does the Minister not agree that the number of deterrents in the United States and the Soviet Union is now horrendous and massive and would blow mankind sky high if anything went wrong? Does he agree that any shade or nuance of meaning from this country is as nothing compared with those deterrents? The Minister says "£5 billion", so casually and almost monosyllabically. Could not that amount of money, put back into our economy, do a great deal to regenerate British industry and put many thousands of our people back to work? Would not that be better than spending it so uselessly on this so-called deterrent, basically to maintain a friendly relationship between us and the United States?

Mr. Nott: I doubt whether the shipyard workers in Barrow, who will be receiving a large proportion of that money in extra shipbuilding orders, would share the hon. Gentleman's view. Of the £5 billion, 70 per cent. will be spent with British industry; it will help to increase jobs and will go back into the British economy. As for the deterrent aspect, although, I agree, the scale of growth of nuclear strategic weapons is horrendous, our independent deterrent will make a significant contribution to the deterring of any aggressor because it involves a second area of decision-making. The hon. Gentleman must know all the arguments for that: I outlined them at some length in the recent debate on Trident.

Mr. Farr: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is very encouraging that 70 per cent. of the total cost of Trident will be spent in United Kingdom firms? Can he confirm that over 80 per cent. of the electronics of Trident will be backed by United Kingdom businesses?

Mr. Nott: Yes, I can confirm that 70 per cent, will be spent in this country. Without reference, I cannot tell my hon. Friend the precise percentage that will be spent on electronics in the United Kingdom but I will check that and write to him.

Mr. John: The Secretary of State's talk of extra jobs is a little disingenuous. If the report in The Guardian this

morning is right, and the Government have refused to reopen Cammell Laird, does that mean that the Barrow shipyards will build Trident submarines at the cost of the interruption of the long programme of the hunter-killer submarine? Does he agree that that is an opportunity-cost interruption to the defence effort of this country which makes nonsense of spending £5 billion on a marginal addition to the so-called deterrent at the expense of interrupting our other defence commitments?

Mr. Nott: The future shipbuilding programme for SSNs—the non-ballistic nuclear submarines—over the 10-year period that we are talking about has not yet been decided, so the hon. Gentleman is in no position to make that judgment. As for expenditure, every Labour Government since the war have considered it desirable, if not essential, that we should have an independent strategic nuclear deterrent. If the Labour Party has changed its mind at this juncture, one must ask why, when the threat is increasing year by year.

Naval Shipbuilding Orders

Mr. Stephen Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish his programme of naval shipbuilding orders for the next financial year.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. Keith Speed): It is not the practice to publish future warship ordering plans. At present, the Department holds a number of tenders from interested shipyards for a variety of vessels including a nuclear-powered fleet submarine, type 22 frigates and minesweeping trawlers.

Mr. Ross: If it is not the custom to publish figures it is surely important that the naval shipbuilding yards should know what the future building programme is likely to be. Will the Minister tell us whether it is true that the "Invincible" class of aircraft carriers or through-deck cruisers is likely to be delayed further? Can he give us any information on the type 23 frigate that we have been reading about in the newspapers?

Mr. Speed: The type 23 frigate procurement process is being accelerated as quickly as possible. The "Invincible" class anti-submarine carriers are not through-deck cruisers. They are not being delayed in any way. "Ark Royal" will be launched by Her Majesty the Queen Mother in June.

Mr. Viggers: In view of the importance of the new class of diesel-electric submarine, will the Minister say something about the building programme? When can we expect to see it in service?

Mr. Speed: Not yet. Development is going ahead. These vessels are not being delayed. The 2400 class of the new SSK forms an important part of our submarine capability. I hope that within a few months I shall be able to give more details. We are still at the development stage.

Mr. George Robertson: Since the Minister is saying that he will not declare in advance the shipbuilding programme for the Navy—although two national newspapers this morning have well-documented accounts of the future ordering programme for the Royal Navy—will he say whether there will be a future fleet submarine ordering programme? Will it be SSN or conventional? Where will the submarines be built?

Mr. Speed: There will be SSNs and conventional submarines but I am not responsible for what appears in a speculative form in the national press.

Mr. Trotter: Will the Minister explain why it is not our practice to publish details of our future warship building programme, since most of our NATO allies do? Would there not be advantages to the industry and a boost to export orders if future plans were known?

Mr. Speed: My hon. Friend has referred in the past to the five-year rolling programme, particularly in respect of the United States Navy. There is something in what he says. Procurement and ordering are presently being looked at by my noble Friend Lord Trenchard. I do not say that I can follow my hon. Friend down that path, but we shall look at it once we have got the procurement process right. I do not think that any of us is happy with the time which the procurement process takes at present, which militates against doing what my hon. Friend wishes us to do.

Air Defence

Mr. Robert Atkins: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied with the current state of United Kingdom air defence.

Mr. Speed: No. Sir. Although we are undertaking a substantial programme of improvements which will greatly enhance our air defence capability, there can be no room for complacency about this, or any other aspect of our defences.

Mr. Atkins: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. Does he not think that an early decision on AV8B, and some urgency in the decision that needs to be taken on the European combat aircraft, would go a long way towards giving peace of mind both to hon. Members and to other people in the country?

Mr. Speed: The AV8B is one of the options for the RAF. As my hon. Friend will have heard, my right hon. Friend had encouraging discussions with the United States last week. The attitude of the United States to the AV8B is extremely important. This is an option on which I hope we can reach a decision as soon as possible, but many important industrial and operational considerations are involved for the RAF.

Mr. Maclennan: Although one recognises the need for training in low flying, does the Minister accept that over-concentration of these exercises in small areas, such as Caithness, which are densely populated, leads to considerable indignation? Will he ask his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the RAF, with whom I have been in correspondence about this, to end the practice of low flying by the RAF over the village of Watten, particularly over the local school?

Mr. Speed: I note what the hon. Gentleman says, and I shall draw my hon. Friend's attention to it. We try to vary the paths as much as possible, but, as the hon. Gentleman will know, it is important, for both operational and safety considerations, that our pilots get this practice.

Mr. Churchill: Bearing in mind that there are now more than 3,000 Fencer, Fitter and Flogger aircraft in the infantry of Soviet frontal aviation, all with the capability of striking these shores, and that there is therefore a serious possibility that up to a third could be tasked on the United

Kingdom, which has barely 70 aircraft for its entire air defence, is it not a matter of urgency for the Government to take a decision on the replacement programme for the Harrier and the Jaguar?

Mr. Speed: I have already spoken about the importance of AV8B. The other matters are under consideration by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Royal Air Force and my right hon. Friend, but I cannot give an answer this afternoon.

Mr. Snape: I congratulate the Minister on his additional portfolio. Will the air defence of this country be increased or retarded by the gap between the phasing out of Shackleton and the introduction of Nimrod? Is that not yet another example of the realities of Government taking over from the bluster of Opposition?

Mr. Speed: As has been said, it takes one to recognise one. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Royal Air Force referred to airborne early warning on 17 February. At present, he is on his way, with the head of defence sales, to represent the British aircraft industry at an important and major sales exhibition in Delhi. I am sure that the whole House will wish both him and British industry success in selling our equipment in that important market.

Shoeburyness

Mr. Teddy Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the Ministry of Defence establishment at Shoeburyness.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. Philip Goodhart): There is a long-terrn requirement for the proof and experimental establishment at Shoeburyness to continue with its present defence functions.

Mr. Taylor: Does the Minister agree that the Shoeburyness ranges are a unique facility in the United Kingdom? Is it the Government's intention that Shoeburyness should have an important and continuing role in the United Kingdom's defence provision?

Mr. Goodhart: That is most certainly so. Our present plans are to spend £¾ million on new facilities in 1981–82.

Rapid Deployment Force

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made in improving the United Kingdom intervention capability outside the NATO area.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what United Kingdom contribution will be made to any Western rapid deployment force established by the West; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Roy Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is to hold any discussions with the Gulf States about new proposals for a possible intervention force for use in that area.

Mr. Aitken: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received concerning the proposals for establishing a rapid deployment force for operations in the Middle East.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark asked: the Secretary of State for Defence whether, in reviewing British defence


commitments in the context of the Alliance, he will have due regard to the threat to British interests outside the NATO area.

Mr. Nott: British defence activity outside the NATO area aims to help maintain stability primarily by the provision of training and assistance, participation in joint exercises and the supply of defence equipment. In addition, British Armed Forces are already available to take military action in an emergency by rapid deployment overseas.
In concert with other allies, principally the United States, we are ready, where our assistance is sought, to make a modest use of force to protect the interests of friendly local States and of the West in strategic regions. In my discussions last week with the United States Secretary of Defence about the United States plans for a rapid deployment force, I made it clear that we will give full support to the United States.
We are also ready to undertake national tasks such as the reinforcement of British dependent territories or the protection of British citizens overseas.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call first the five hon. Members whose questions are being answered together.

Mr. Stokes: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he give some idea of the sort of forces which could be deployed in a rapid deployment force?

Mr. Nott: On our side, we already have a spearhead battalion, on 72 hours' notice. At present, it is the 1st Battalion the Cheshire Regiment, and in two weeks' time it will be the 1st Batallion the Royal Regiment of Wales. We have enough VC1Os and Hercules aircraft to lift the battalion quickly to any necessary part of the world. We also have further units on which we can draw from the 8th Field Force, which is stationed here, which includes a fully trained parachute battalion. We also have other forces, earmarked for NATO's ACE mobile force, some of them at present deployed in the United Kingdom, on which we can draw.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Would not belief in my right hon. Friend's welcome substantive reply be undermined if anything were done to reduce the strength and effectiveness of the Royal Marine Commando Force?

Mr. Nott: I know of my hon. Friend's great concern about the proposal to merge one of the Commandos with others. As I think I have told him, there is no present intention to reduce the numbers of Royal Marine Commandos, and recruiting is still increasing their numbers. However, we envisage there being one fewer Commando.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Has the Secretary of State considered the objections to these plans from Arab States in the area? Does he appreciate that, wisely and understandably, they do not wish to be involved in this cold war strategy? Would not it be better for the Government to forget these imperialist delusions and concentrate on getting Britain back to work?

Mr. Nott: I am not aware of the objections to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. I shall be going to Saudi Arabia, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Bahrein next week. No doubt I shall hear directly how they

think we can act together in our common interests to preserve parts of the world from potential threats to countries in those areas and to the West as a whole.

Mr. Aitken: During my right hon. Friend's forthcoming visit to the Middle East, will he undertake to carry out detailed consultations with friendly Governments before coming to final decisions on our contribution to a RDF? In particular, is he aware that, although any extension of the existing maritime forces in the Gulf could be useful in a time of crisis, any attempt to build large military bases on foreign soil could prove both counterproductive and provocative?

Mr. Nott: The security and stability of the Gulf are in the first place matters of concern for those States themselves. We do not envisage action in the Gulf, for instance, without the full support and request of those States. It would be a common venture for the defence of countries threatened by aggression, so it would have to be by agreement and after consultation. I should have mentioned the Royal Navy's contribution, which could be significant, and in certain cases substantial, for a rapid deployment force.
The United States is at present having talks about bases with a number of countries in the area. They would almost certainly be bases for equipment and not for people, but these are matters that we are reviewing with the countries concerned.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Bearing in mind the vast wealth of the Gulf States, is it not best to offer them our military expertise and equipment and leave them to do best for themselves what in the end each country has to do?

Mr. Nott: Of course—that is precisely the position at present: we are providing considerable assistance to the Gulf States. They have extensive arrangements for their own defence, but if at any time they seek our assistance, I think that we should be ready to provide it.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Does the Secretary of State remember the long and successful struggle in the House to wind up our military activities east of Suez? Are the Government now proposing to return there?

Mr. Nott: I certainly remember the hon. Gentleman's struggle. Whether it was successful is a matter of judgment. We withdrew from permanent bases east of Suez, if that is what the hon. Gentleman means, and there is no intention to return to permanent bases there, in the Gulf or anywhere else. That is not, and was never said to be, the purpose of the rapid deployment force.

Mr. Trippier: Will my right hon. Friend seriously consider the suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) about the Royal Marines? If money is to be found for a rapid deployment force, could that not be a means of giving a new lease of life to 41 Commando?

Mr. Nott: I understand my hon. Friend's concern about 41 Commando. The Royal Marines generally need no new lease of life, as I am sure my hon. Friend will agree. On the Naval task force side, we envisage the possibility that HMS "Hermes", with a Marine Commando and with support forces, would be available for an RDF-type task. In circumstances of that kind, or in others, the marines would perform a vital role.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Does not the Secretary of State's statement that he is prepared to reassign NATO-assigned mobile forces to the RDF strike a fundamental blow at the coherence of the NATO alliance, since our first priority is to the central front of NATO?

Mr. Nott: That is not what I said at all.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Yes, it is.

Mr. Nott: No, it is not. I said that we had a spearhead battalion available in this country at 72 hours' notice. I referred to the 8th Field Force, based in the United Kingdom, which is not dedicated to SACEUR. I then said that NATO itself—SACEUR—has a mobile force which, if NATO and SACEUR so decided, might itself provide some additional forces. That is quite different from the way in which the hon. Gentleman put it.

Mr. Johnson-Smith: As there are real problems with the composition and methods of control of rapid defence deployment forces outside the NATO area, when will my right hon. Friend be able to give us some idea of the Government's thinking on these complex and necessary matters?

Mr. Nott: I think that in the past five minutes I have given my hon. Friend a fairly clear idea of our thinking, but I should be happy to elaborate on it on some other occasion. A number of details have still to be settled. This depends to some extent on the Americans further developing their own ideas—for instance, on the command and control structure and on the exact composition of their forces—before we can finally tie up the details of our own contribution.

Mr. John: In an interview in NOW! magazine on 6 March, the Secretary of State denied that the boundaries of NATO would be extended at all. What he has now said about SACEUR seems to imply that there is a desire for extension. Does he deny that? Secondly, does he realise that the great fault in the announcement of the rapid deployment force is that the consultation took place in Washington and not in the Gulf States, where it should have been, before the force was announced? Will he kindly ask his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to think first and speak afterwards rather than the reverse?

Mr. Nott: There is a continuing dialogue with the Gulf States by the United States and by this country. The command and control arrangements would be national forces, not under NATO command. I must clarify once again what I said. I said that some mobile forces already exist which, if NATO so desired, might provide some forces as a mobile force. The United States, for instance, does not envisage that the RDF should be drawn from any troops on the central front. Nor do I envisage that any contribution that we might make would come from the central front. As I have said, it would come from the spearhead battalion. If more was needed, it might come from the 8th Field Force, which is in the United Kingdom.

Armed Forces (Northern Ireland)

Mr. Ron Brown: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current total strength of British Armed Forces in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Goodhart: In Northern Ireland, there are currently 10 major units of the Regular Army deployed in the

infantry role, together with supporting arms and services, 11 battalions of the Ulster Defence Regiment, and small Royal Navy and Royal Air Force elements.

Mr. Brown: I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he agree that Ireland's problems are mainly political and not religious? Does he accept that Irish Protestants and Catholics can be united, as Larkin and Connolly clearly proved? Does he accept that one of the first steps towards a political solution is to withdraw British troops? Is it not important to consider that as it is most urgent to achieve some solution in that troubled island?

Mr. Goodhart: The Opposition's principal spokesman on defence, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John), knows Northern Ireland and the role of the Army there very well. I am sure that he can give the hon. Gentleman a lesson on both subjects.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is not one right hon. Gentleman who does not understand the role of the Army in Northern Ireland the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn)? In an attempt to remove the right hon. Gentleman's paranoia, will my hon. Friend consider taking him by the hand, and showing him what our soldiers are doing to defend human life in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Goodhart: I think that it is generally agreed that the right hon. Gentleman's speech at the weekend was most unfortunate.

Mr. Molyneaux: Is the Minister aware that there is a general support throughout the community for the policy that is resulting in the Royal Ulster Constabulary assuming responsibility for law enforcement throughout the Province, with the Army fulfilling its rightful role in defending the frontier of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Goodhart: As a Minister in Northern Ireland for 20 months, I know personally that that is true.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: Will the Minister confirm that his long-term policy is for policing eventually to revert to the police, together with the maintenance of law and order? Meanwhile, does he agree that the unilateral withdrawal of British troops would serve no purpose whatever and is not the policy of the Labour Party?

Mr. Goodhart: I absolutely and completely agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Cruise Missiles

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he now expects cruise missiles to be delivered and deployed on British soil.

Mr. Goodhart: Late in 1983.

Mr. Winterton: Will my hon. Friend confirm yet again that cruise missiles form a vital part of our overall defence strategy? Will he further confirm that when cruise: missies are deployed on training exercises they will not carry live warheads?

Mr. Goodhart: That is most certainly true. On exercises, cruise missiles will deploy only to Ministry of Defence training areas, and they will carry neither warheads nor fuel.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Although Liberal Members support the idea of updating our NATO nuclear weapons,


Will the Minister confirm that, if meaningful progress can be made with the Russians and the Warsaw Pact countries over the withdrawal of the SS20s and other weapons, Her Majesty's Government intend not to proceed with the introduction of cruise missiles in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Goodhart: I am happy to say that the Russians have been more forthcoming on talks since the deployment of these weapons was announced. There will be a further meeting of the NATO steering group, which deals with questions of arms negotiations, in the very near future.

Mr. Wilkinson: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the theatre nuclear role assigned to the Tomahawk cruise missiles to be deployed in the United Kingdom is not the only purpose for which cruise missiles were designed, and that there will shortly be a real requirement for air-launched cruise missiles or effective stand-off weaponry to improve the penetrating capability of British air power?

Mr. Goodhart: That is under active consideration at this moment.

Mr. John: But will the Minister confirm that NATO agreement to the deployment of cruise missiles was given on condition that the disarmament talks would take place with the Russians? Will the Minister therefore accept that hon. Members in all parts of the House expect an energetic pursuit of those talks with the Russians before cruise is ever deployed?

Mr. Goodhart: As I said, there is to be a meeting of the steering group. The discussions are scheduled to be held in the very near future.

British Army of the Rhine

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give the latest figures for the costs associated with maintaining British troops in Germany; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Goodhart: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. MeAlber for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) on 27 January 1981.

Mr. Roberts: Will the Minister accept that, in terms of Army support, it is intolerable that a relatively poor country such as Britain should be effectively subsidising Germany, which is a very rich country? Irrespective of any mistakes in this direction which may have been made by the Labour Government, will the Minister now accept that it is time to reopen the negotiations to see whether we can receive a satisfactory payment from Germany towards this cost?

Mr. Goodhart: When the Labour Government concluded the final offset agreement in 1977, it was part of that agreement that there would be no continuing negotiations on this subject. Since then, the German trade balance has gone into deficit and ours has gone into surplus.

Light Anti-Armour Weapon

Mr. Colvin: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the development of the light anti-armour weapon.

Mr. Goodhart: A man portable lightweight anti-armour weapon known as LAW 80 is under development for introduction into the British Army during the early 1980s.
LAW 80 is an all-British design and the first manned firing took place recently. It is designed to knock out of action the most modern Russian main battle tanks and will be issued to the Services in large numbers.

Mr. Colvin: Will my hon. Friend agree that the light anti-armour weapon could make a most cost-effective contribution to the task of stopping mass attacks of Warsaw Pact armour in a central European theatre? What other NATO countries have agreed to adopt this weapon?

Mr. Goodhart: It is still in the development stage, but we hope and believe that there will be a large sale to our friends and allies.

Foreign Troops (Training)

Mr. Newens: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what criteria are laid down before foreign troops are accepted for training with members of Her Majesty's Armed Forces in this country or elsewhere.

Mr. Goodhart: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 2 March and to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the present Leader of the House to a similar question from the hon. Gentleman on 12 February last year.

Mr. Newens: Will the Minister accept that training in horrific interrogation techniques is sometimes given to the troops of Governments who oppose human rights and who may be hostile to the interests of this country? Does he justify this? Will he comment on the fact that Iranian troops and Argentinian troops are at present, as I understand from his reply to my question, in training in this country?

Mr. Goodhart: We do not train any overseas students in interrogation techniques. Although there were about 1,000 Iranians being trained in this country, there are now about 20, and one Argentinian is being trained.

PRIME MINISTER

Nerve Gas Weapons

Ql. Mr. Hooley: asked the Prime Minister whether her conversations with President Reagan included discussions on the stockpiling or deployment of binary nerve gas weapons on British soil.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): No, Sir.

Mr. Hooley: Is the Prime Minister aware that the United Kingdom has hitherto had a good record in promoting discussions on a convention to abolish all chemical weapons and prohibit their use? In the light of the horrific nature of such weapons, will this continue to be the policy of Her Majesty's Government?

The Prime Minister: Yes, indeed. We are anxious to secure a comprehensive ban on chemical weapons. what is holding up such a bands the attitude of the Soviet Union, which has shown itself unwilling to countenance the verification arrangements that we need.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that many of us on the Government Benches welcome the Government's decision not to develop an offensive chemical warfare capability but to concentrate on producing better defensive mechanisms against chemical warfare?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It would be better still if we had a comprehensive ban on the possession of chemical weapons but so far there is no prospect of getting one. Moreover, it would be better if those who have been accused of possibly using chemical weapons in Afghanistan would submit to United Nations investigation, which so far they have refused to do.

Mr. James A. Dunn: Will the Prime Minister include in her discussions reference to El Salvador and any military or civil assistance that might be requested?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a very different question from the one that is before the House.

Mr. Churchill: Is it not a matter of extreme concern that the Soviet Union should have made such heavy investments in recent years in offensive chemical capability, both land-based and air-launched? Is it not a fact that every division of the Soviet Army has an integral chemical battalion? In those circumstances, unless some agreement can be obtained with the Soviet Union, is my right hon. Friend prepared to reconsider whether British troops should face these weapons without any means of defending themselves?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is a terrible fact that the Soviet Union has a considerable offensive chemical weapons capability. Criticism should be concentrated on persuading the Soviet Union first to reduce that capability and then totally to disband it. So long as the Soviet Union retains it, naturally other countries are concerned that they have nothing with which to deter the Soviet Union from using it. We must first concentrate on giving our own troops a defensive capability and proper protection.

Engagements

Mr. Colin Shepherd: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 March.

The Prime Minister: This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including one with the Commonwealth Secretary-General. I was also present when Her Majesty the Queen welcomed President Shagari of Nigeria. In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further meetings later today, and this evening I shall attend a State banquet given by the Queen in honour of President Shagari.

Mr. Shepherd: Has my right hon. Friend had time today to read the press reports of the tremendous success being enjoyed by British Leyland's Mini Metro, which is currently top of the sales league? Is not the message for British industry that if the work forces and managements of companies work together as teams they will enjoy greater success, with better results for employment? Will my right hon. Friend take time today to congratulate the whole of British Leyland's management and work force team?

The Prime Minister: The news about the Mini Metro was very good. I gladly respond to my hon. Friend's invitation to congratulate both the management and the work force. I hope that the Mini Metro will sell well and that the number of sales will continue to increase. However, many must be sold before the break-even point is reached. I should very much like British Leyland to sell enough to make a profit.

Mr. Foot: In what circumstances has the right hon. Lady set up an inquiry into an alleged Budget leak?

The Prime Minister: I personally do not set up inquiries into matters that are within the province of the Treasury. The inquiry has been set up in the normal way by the Treasury. The Treasury is taking action through the usual Civil Service departments.

Mr. Foot: Must I take it that this is a normal inquiry into the usual leakage? May I press the right hon. Lady further? Does she not think that perhaps the most serious of last week's leakages occurred last Friday when it was suggested that she or those closely associated with her had said that it would not be possible to hold pre-Budget Cabinet meetings to discuss the contents of the Budget because of the danger of leakage and because what was discussed in the morning might be out by tea-time? Who are these tea-time traitors? Can the right hon. Lady enlighten us a little more about that and about whether the leakage came from her office?

The Prime Minister: In all the time that I have been in Cabinet I cannot remember a Budget that was discussed in Cabinet before it had been prepared.

Mr. Foot: It is a most extraordinary development if the Cabinet does not discuss the Budget beforehand. That was not the practice of previous Cabinets. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh".] I can assure the House that there were discussions, as the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) said yesterday. However, I am asking the right hon. Lady about her statements, or about the statements that have been attributed to her, which were released on Friday. They imply that she would have difficulty in instituting any discussions on such matters in this Cabinet. Did that leakage come from her office, or from thin air?

The Prime Minister: Budget Statements are never discussed in Cabinet. The right hon. Gentleman seems to be saying that things were different in his time. I wonder why we frequently saw news items to the effect that on the day before the Budget or on the morning of the Budget the Cabinet had been called together to be told its precise contents.

Mr. Robert Atkins: Will my right hon. Friend take time today to consider the enormous rates increase that has occurred in the borough of Preston since the Labour Party took control? Before that take-over Preston had the lowest rates in the United Kingdom. Under Labour control, the borough has announced a rate rise of 160 per cent.

The Prime Minister: I hope that the electorate will draw the lesson from my hon. Friend's question. Labour Governments and authorities are adept at spending other people's money.

Mr. David Steel: A week after the Budget Statement, is it still the Prime Minister's view that we must go on


taking the medicine? If so, will she bear it in mind that the side of every medicine bottle bears the words "Caution—do not exceed the stated dose"?

The Prime Minister: The stated dose has not yet been exceeded.

Mr. Hardy: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hardy: Does the Financial Secretary's recent speech, which seemed to give enormously high priority to cuts in direct taxation despite the fact that they will mean substantial increases in unemployment, have the right hon. Lady's approval?

The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman must be referring to a television interview in which my right hon. Friend repeated that it was our objective to reduce the standard rate of income tax. That was and remains our objective, and it is a very good one. The Labour Party would have increased income tax.

Mr. Dover: Will the Prime Minister assure the House that civil servants who take part in the current dispute will lose their pay for the days that they are on strike?

he Prime Minister: people in the Civil Service are not paid for the days that they are on strike.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Since the Prime Minister came into office nearly two years ago, millions of people have suffered as a result of her policies. In what way have she or her family suffered in that time?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that I answer for anything personal at this Dispatch Box.

Mr. Pawsey: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 17 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Pawsey: Will my right hon. Friend try to find time during her busy day to urge the nation to buy more British manufactured goods? At the same time, will she underline the point that buying British will save British jobs?

The Prime Minister: Many people could help by buying a larger proportion of British-made goods. I said as much in a speech about a fortnight ago. We cannot always buy British-made goods because jobs are also involved in exports. As my hon. Friend said, it would undoubtedly provide more jobs if more people were to use their pay packets to buy goods made in this country.

Mr. Robert Hughes: During the right hon. Lady's discussions with President Shagari of Nigeria, will she give him an undertaking that when the subject of Namibia next comes before the Security Council the British Government will support mandatory economic sanctions against South Africa?

The Prime Minister: I can give no such undertaking. The British Government will continue to work in the usual way in which we have been working with our partners in order to achieve a settlement in Namibia. In that way Namibia can reach true independence through a proper election and a free ballot.

Mr. Adley: Following the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover), is my right

hon. Friend aware that many of my constituents feel that civil servants are neither underpaid nor lacking in job security? In the light of the current dispute, will she redouble her efforts to review the manpower levels in every Department of central Government?

The Prime Minister: It is true that the pay of civil servants and of those working in local authorities is, in money terms, about 50 per cent. above the level of two years ago. That shows that the Government have tried to give those who work in the public service a fair and true deal. We have announced that we wish to reduce the Civil Service to its lowest post-war level of 630,000. We shall pursue that objective vigorously.

Mr. Dubs: Will the right hon. Lady spend time today considering the secrecy that surrounds the way in which Governments traditionally approach their Budget plans? In future, could not the options that underlie the Budget be made public before the Statement, so that debate in the House and in the country may be better informed?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Lang: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Lang: Will my right hon. Friend find time today to consider the recent decision of the Scottish Labour Party conference in favour of setting up a Scottish Assembly with tax-raising powers? Does she not agree that another layer of bureaucracy and of taxation is the last thing that Scotland needs?

The Prime Minister: I agree with both the opinions so ably expressed by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Stoddart: Has the right hon. Lady had time to consider last night's vote on the increased petrol tax? The increase was universally condemned by her right hon. and hon. Friends—[Interruption.] Indeed, the increase resulted in at least one defection from the right hon. Lady's party. May I take it that between now and Committee stage—which I hope will be taken on the Floor of the House—the Government will review their policy and remove that tax increase?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. As for the majority, I seem to recall that the Labour Party nationalised British Aerospace and British Shipbuilders on a majority of one. Ours was 1,400 per cent. better than that.

Mr. Neubert: In view of the continuing disruption by civil servants, has my right hon. Friend reached any conclusions about the statement made by the strike coordinator 10 days ago that the intention is to damage economic strategy and to reduce the country's defence capability? Does not that go beyond a pay dispute and threaten democratic Government itself? Does it not argue for a renegotiation of conditions of employment of key workers to prevent such sabotage of national security?

The Prime Minister: We would regard these matters very seriously indeed. Sometimes, indeed, I have suggested myself that we have no-strike agreements. We believe that in key matters of this kind it should be almost a matter of honour that there should be no strike without negotiating a special agreement about it.

Mr. Foot: Since the right hon. Lady seems to be happy about the result of the vote in the House on the petrol tax, and since the increase seems to be causing such great

disturbance in the country at large, would she not care to think it over and perhaps make the matter the subject of a free vote in the House?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Questions to Ministers

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You may recall that in reply to question No. 1, to the Secretary of State for Defence, the Secretary of State made an extremely long answer, which seemed to cause you concern. When a Minister uses that sort of opportunity to make what is, in effect, a statement, that reduces Question Time and also reduces the further opportunities for questioning Ministers through avoiding the need to make a statement. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether you could indicate your concern that whenever Ministers have an important statement to make they should do so by way of a statement and not use the means of a planted question for oral answer in order to avoid that responsibility.

Mr. Speaker: A question that comes out No. 1 in the ballot can hardly be a planted question in the sense that the House understands it. It is true that I discourage major statements being made in answer to questions when that takes a long time. We spent seven minutes on question No. 1 which reduced the time that could be spent on other questions.

Sir Frederick Burden: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Did you notice that the hon. Member who raised this point of order was asking questions from a sedentary position throughout the whole of Question Time, as he does on every conceivable occasion?

Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. This gives me an opportunity to remind the House that shouting from a sedentary position is quite unparliamentary, and that while the House is accustomed—[Interruption.] I do not know which hon. Member made that remark, but it was very ill-mannered. The House is accustomed to displays of emotion. None the less, we destroy our own democracy if Members have to fight constantly to have a chance to be heard within the Chamber.

Belize

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on Belize.
Following the recent ministerial talks in London between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Guatemala, at which the Premier of Belize and two of his Cabinet colleagues were present, heads of agreement were signed on 11 March on the basis of which a full settlement is to be negotiated between the United Kingdom and Guatemala. This settlement will end the controversy that has existed between the two countries for well over 100 years over the territory of Belize.
The heads of agreement, which were published last night, represent a significant advance. They provide a framework for a solution to this long-standing problem that all concerned can regard as just and honourable. Settlement of the controversy will bring great benefits to Belize, the safeguarding of whose interests has been our concern throughout the negotiations. Under the terms of the treaties, which we shall now negotiate, the Guatemalan territorial claim will be ended and Belize's future security will therefore be assured. Guatemala will recognise the independent State of Belize within its existing frontiers on the day of independence.
Guatemala will also benefit. It will be assured permanent and unimpeded access to the Caribbean; the use and enjoyment of the Ranguana and Sapodilla cays, the two southernmost groups of very small islands on the Belizean barrier reef; and rights in areas of the sea adjacent to the cays, as may be agreed. Other provisions will be mutually beneficial. They include free port facilities for Guatemala in Belize and for Belize in Guatemala, completion of roads, facilities for oil pipelines, agreements on pollution control, navigation and fishing, joint exploration and exploitation of minerals in areas of the sea bed and continental shelf to be agreed, and development projects and security co-operation. A copy of the full text will be circulated in the Official Report.
The heads of agreement represent a commitment on all sides to negotiate in good faith the legal instruments that will provide for a full, honourable and permanent settlement. I pay tribute to the imagination and flexibility shown by the Belizean delegation as well as the Guatemalan Government in the talks, which have enabled us to take this major step forward. I am confident that, with continuing good will and understanding, a final settlement can be negotiated successfully over the coming months.

Mr. Giles Radice: Is the Minister aware that the Opposition welcome the heads of agreement in the hope that this will end the long-running dispute between Britain and Guatemala over Belize and enable Belize at last to take its place as an independent nation? At this crucial stage, before the joint commission has met to work out the fine print of the heads of agreement, it would be wrong to make any detailed comment, but I should like to ask the Minister some questions about the outline settlement.
First, does the freedom of transit given to Guatemala on the two roads through Belize to the Guatemalan frontier apply to military transport? Secondly, how many British troops, if any, will be stationed in Belize when that country becomes independent? Lastly, does the Minister


accept that in any final settlement between this very small parliamentary democracy and the much larger military regime of Guatemala—a settlement in which both sides, Belize quite as much as Guatemala, will have to make concessions—the proof of the pudding will very much lie in the eating?

Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he says. I am also grateful to the Opposition for consistently supporting our efforts to achieve this agreement over a long period, with, I think, an all-party approach to the problem. The freedom of transit across the two roads to which the hon. Member drew attention is for commercial traffic only. There is no concession for military traffic along those roads. In relation to post-independence arrangements for security, I think the House will agree that it is a little premature to decide these matters. They will be discussed at the constitutional conference that is shortly to come. We shall certainly do whatever is necessary. The point that I should like to make is that what will be necessary if there is a settlement with Guatemala will be vastly different from what will be necessary if there is not a settlement. On the last point, about which the hon. Gentleman will perhaps remind me—

Mr. Radice: The proof of the pudding lies in the eating.

Mr. Ridley: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. These are only a heads of agreement. Difficulties may still arise in negotiating the final settlement.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: In view of the fact that, at any rate up to the time of Her Majesty's visit to Mexico, the Mexican Government expressed a continuing interest in the locus standi of Guatemala and Belize—indeed, at one stage, there was a Mexican claim to northern Belize—may we take it that this arrangement has been discussed informally with the Mexican Government so that it receives their good will, that being an important ingredient in any settlement in that region?

Mr. Ridley: We have kept in close touch with the Mexican Government throughout the negotiations, and I can assure my hon. Friend that the Mexican Government are extremely happy with the heads of agreement. There is no question of Mexico's pressing any claim against Belize.

Mr. Edward Rowlands: As one who has been involved in the protracted negotiations, may I add my congratulations on the settlement that is about to happen? In particular, may I offer my best wishes to Premier Price and the people of Belize, who have fought a long campaign on behalf of their aspirations to become an independent State, against considerable Guatemalan intransigence?
I wish to put two points to the Minister. First, I think that it would be a good idea for the troops to withdraw slowly, to ensure that the settlement will stick, and so that the volatile Guatemalan political scene will not affect the result. The second point relates to the cays and the negotiations that are to take place. Will my hon. Friend be able to give the same assurances that he has just given about transit to the Belize on ports, and can he confirm that there will be no question of a Guatemalan military presence on the cays in any subequent negotiations?

Mr. Ridley: I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he said, and I pay tribute to the sterling efforts that he has made in this dispute over many years. I believe that he helped to lay the foundation of the agreement that has now been reached. I join him in congratulating Premier Price on what I believe has been a good settlement, but one that was hard-fought, particularly on his side, and I wish the Government of Belize all success in the future.
I hesitate to answer the hon. Gentleman's first question, for the reason that I gave the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice)—it is still too soon to say what the effects will be. We shall need to discuss the matter with Belize before making precise predictions about troop strengths.
Secondly, the types of use of the cays that are to be agreed between Belize and Guatemala have not yet been settled. That is one of the items that still have to be finalised in the negotiations leading up to the treaty.

Mr. Robert Atkins: I wish to press my hon. Friend on two matters that concern security. First, it was clear to a number of hon. Members of both parties who recently visited Belize under the leadership of the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) that most of the people of Belize wished to retain British troops there, if for no other reason than that the money has to be spent in some way, and that is an excellent way for the troops to get jungle training, while enhancing the security of Belize. I accept that my hon. Friend will not he able to give me any details now, but will he consider the matter?
Secondly, what help ought to be given to the Belize defence forces, which at present have one or two British permanent instructors? 'What equipment or further assistance can we give them after independence?

Mr. Ridley: The views that were expressed about British troops on my hon. Friend's visit to Belize were expressed before settlement was reached. If settlement is finally achieved, I hope that it will allay the fears of the people to Belize to a large extent. I can confirm that whatever happens we shall help the Belize defence force to improve its capability, with training and equipment, so that it can become a credible force in the defence of Belize.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Is the Minister aware that, in view of the fact that he is often criticised in other parts of Latin America, he deserves our congratulations on achieving this agreement? Is he prepared to guarantee the agreement in security terms?

Mr. Ridley: I am not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman meant in the first part of his question. In answer to the second part, we shall do whatever is necessary in the circumstances. Clearly, I cannot go as far as to guarantee anything in a country that is soon to become independent. We shall keep in close touch with the Government of Belize and help them with any problems that may arise.

Dr. M. S. Miller: I congratulate the Minister on the settlement, which certainly seems better than what we had been led to believe previously, but are not congratulations somewhat premature, considering that we are dealing with a dictator whose country is aimed to the teeth? The situation in Belize has remained calm because of the presence of British troops there, to whom congratulations and credit are due. In such a situation, where there is to be a big constitutional change, surely the


people of Belize should be consulted. Would it not be a good idea to hold a referendum, with impartial supervision, to ascertain the views of the people?

Mr. Ridley: It is only 13 months since the Government of Belize were re-elected, extremely convincingly, on a full mandate to proceed to independence, come what may. If a settlement is reached, that mandate will be reinforced. I accept that we are still not at the end of the road, and that things may go wrong, but surely the hon. Gentleman will agree that if an agreement is reached with Guatemala, it will be by far the best way to bring about a good relationship between Guatemala and Belize. It must, by definition, be infinitely better than having independence without such an agreement.
I join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating the troops on the magnificent job that they have done in Belize. They deserve the admiration of all hon. Members.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call those hon. Gentlemen who have been rising from the beginning of supplementary questions on the statement.

Mr. William Shelton: Will my hon. Friend accept my congratulations for having moved the affair thus far? May I also pay tribute to the good sense of the Guatemalan Government and the representatives of Belize? Will my hon. Friend tell us what is the present cost of her Majesty's forces stationed in Belize, and whether that cost will be reduced or will increase in the next year or two?

Mr. Ridley: I am extremely grateful for what my hon. Friend said. I echo the tribute that he paid to the other parties in this round of negotiations. It is difficult to give accurate figures for the cost of troops, because it depends on whether one takes the absolute cost of the troops, plus their equipment, or includes the extra cost of having them in Belize rather than in the United Kingdom. I believe that the former figure is between £25 million and £30 million a year, and the latter figure is about £3½ million a year. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will confirm those figures.

Mr. Eric Ogden: Will the Minister accept my congratulations on the patient but—I gather—determined fight that he played in the negotiations? Will he confirm that agreement was reached at 8·30 last Wednesday morning? If it proves nothing else, it proves that the Minister has more control over leaks in his Department than is the case in other Departments. What part, if any, will the British Government play in the further negotiations on the clarification of the heads of agreement with Belize and Guatemala? Will they be between Belize and Guatemala, or shall we have some part to play in the negotiations?

Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I must disclaim having sat all night on Tuesday. We concluded our discussions at 7 pm on Tuesday and merely returned to sign at 8·30 am on Wednesday. I confirm that we shall play a part in the further rounds of negotiations with representatives from the Belize and Guatemalan Governments. There will be further tripartite negotiations.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I hope that my hon. Friend will find this experience useful when dealing with other settlements and disputes in the

neighbourhood. Is the draft agreement in line with United Nations resolutions on the subject? What is the attitude of the Opposition party in Belize to the draft agreement?

Mr. Ridley: The heads of agreement comply entirely with the United Nations resolution of last autumn. There is no derogation of sovereignty and no impairment of Belize's traditional frontiers.
To my knowledge, the Opposition in Belize have not commented since they heard the details of the settlement. As it was announced only last night, no comment has so far reached me. Any comments made before they knew the terms of the settlement might need to be revised. I am waiting to hear what the Opposition in Belize have to say.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: Does the Minister agree that Belize is probably the best example of a truly multi-racial democracy? We all wish to congratulate the Minister on the progress so far. Is he aware that we are all determined that Belize should be able to maintain its independence? Does he agree that it is no part of the job of a former colonial Power to guarantee independence by military means? Since there is such unanimity in the United Nations on the question of independence for Belize, will the Minister seek the United Nations guarantees for the independence of Belize in future?

Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I confirm that Belize is a multi-racial democracy of an exemplary rectitude, despite its small size. We want it to remain so. I do not believe that that can be achieved by a United Nations guarantee. There is no precedent for that. The biggest contribution that can be made to security is to have a treaty of settlement with Guatemala. After that it is difficult to see who the enemy could be. That is the best guarantee for the future.

Mr. Christopher Murphy: In view of the increasing Cuban threat to democracy in Central America, does my hon. Friend agree that to assure Belize's independence some form of military guarantee may have to be made by Britain?

Mr. Ridley: The mere fact that Belize goes independent and becomes a member of the United Nations and, we hope, the Organisation of American States, will in itself be a major guarantee of its security. Her Majesty's Government will take whatever steps seem necessary to reinforce that independence and that security in the light of events at the time when Belize achieves independence.

Mr. Stanley Newens: Since, in the past, the United States has had a policy that has not always coincided with that of Britain, can the Minister assure the House that the present American Administration will give full backing to the settlement and will in no circumstances back any future Guatemalan Administration who seek to revive Guatemala's claim?

Mr. Ridley: I am happy to pay tribute to both the present and the past American Administrations. The last Administration supported the United Nations resolution. President Reagan's Administration have already sent messages to the Guatemalan and Belizean Governments congratulating them on a just and honourable agreement.

Mr. John Sever: Is the Minister aware that the statement will be welcomed, particularly by hon. Members who recently visited Belize?
I am grateful to the Minister for having placed on record the thanks of the Government for the work that British troops have been doing in Belize, in what must be one of the most unacceptable and difficult postings abroad. When the Minister considers the negotiations further, will he bear in mind that the situation within Belize is difficult in relation to some local administration and infrastructure? Will he bear in mind the difficulties that might be occasioned to a newly independent State and make provision for and give assistance in terms of the infrastructure and similar matters at independence?

Mr. Ridley: I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says. I repeat my tribute to the troops and to the RAF personnel who have served in Belize. The development of the infrastructure is important, and we shall play our part. My hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development hopes to discuss that later this afternoon. The fact that there has been a settlement will bring help from many other countries—including the United States of America—which are pleased that this has happened. We are conscious of the need.

Mr. Edward Lyons: I congratulate the Minister on the progress that he has made towards the independence of Britain's last colony in the Western hemisphere. Will he bear in mind that the reason why Guatemala has been so obdurate is that it enshrined the claim to Belize in its 1946 constitution? In the negotiations, has there been any promise to remove the assertion of sovereignty over Belize from the Guatemalan constitution? If there has not been such a move, there could be trouble in the future.

Mr. Ridley: I am sorry to have tell the hon. and learned Gentleman that Britain still has 13 dependencies in the Western hemisphere, including Belize. The Guatemalan constitution is a matter for the Guatemalan Government. However, by signing the heads of agreement they have implied that they wish to recognise an independent Belize and to drop their claim against us for that territory. How they regularise that internally is a matter for them.

Following is the text:

Heads of Agreement

The United Kingdom and Guatemala, in order to settle the controversy between them over the territory of Belize, have reached agreement on the following points.

1. The United Kingdom and Guatemala shall recognise the independent State of Belize as an integral part of Central America, and respect its sovereignty and territorial integrity in accordance with its existing and traditional frontiers subject, in the case of Guatemala, to the completion of the treaty or treaties necessary to give effect to these Heads of Agreement.

2. Guatemala shall be accorded such territorial seas as shall ensure permanent and unimpeded access to the high seas, together with rights over the seabed there-under.

3. Guatemala shall have the use and enjoyment of the Ranguana and Sapodilla cays, and rights in those areas of the sea adjacent to the cays, as may be agreed.

4. Guatemala shall be entitled to free port facilities in Belize City and Punta Gorda.,

5. The road from Belize City to the Guatemalan frontier shall be improved; a road from Punta Gorda to the Guatemalan frontier shall be completed. Guatemala shall have freedom of transit on these roads.

6. Belize shall facilitate the construction of oil pipelines between Guatemala and Belize City, Dangriga and Punta Gorda.

7. In areas to be agreed an agreement shall be concluded between Belize and Guatemala for purposes concerned with the control of pollution, navigation and fishing.

8. There shall be areas of the seabed and the continental shelf to be agreed for the joint exploration and exploitation of minerals and hydrocarbons.

9. Belize and Guatemala shall agree upon certain developmental projects of mutual benefit.

10. Belize shall be entitled to any free port facilities in Guatemala to match similar facilities provided to Guatemala in Belize.

11. Belize and Guatemala shall sign a treaty of co-operation in matters of security of mutual concern, and neither shall permit its territory to be used to support subversion against the other.

12. Except as foreseen in these Heads of Agreement, nothing in these provisions shall prejudice any rights or interests of Belize or of the Belizean people.

13. The United Kingdom and Guatemala shall enter into agreements designed to re-establish full and normal relations between them.

14. The United Kingdom and Guatemala shall take the necessary action to sponsor the membership of Belize in the United Nations, the Organisation of American States, Central American organisations and other international organisations.

15. A Joint Commission shall be established between Belize, Guatemala and the United Kingdom to work out details to give effect to the above provisions. It will prepare a treaty or treaties for signature by the Signatories to these Heads of Agreement.

16. The controversy between the United Kingdom and Guatemala over the territory of Belize shall therefore be honourably and finally terminated.
Signed at London, the 11th day of March 1981, in the English and the Spanish language, both texts being equally authentic.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Mr. Speaker: To save the time of the House I propose to put together the Questions on the two motions on statutory instruments.

Ordered,
That the Rating of Industry (Scotland) Order 1981 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft British Nuclear Fuels Limited (Financial Limit) Order 1981 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c. —[Mr. Boscawen]

WELSH AFFAIRS

Ordered,
That the matter of the Consequences of the Budget and the Government's Economic Policies in Wales, being a matter relating exclusively to Wales, be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for their consideration. —[Mr. Boscawen.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, notwithstanding the practice of the House relating to the interval between stages of Bills of aids and supplies, more than one stage of the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill may be proceeded with at this day's sitting. —[Mr. Boscawen.]

European Communities (Amendment)

Mr. Tony Marlow: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend certain provisions of the European Communities Act 1972.
As you are well aware, Mr. Speaker, the position of the United Kingdom within the European Community is once again a live political issue. There are the pressures of the CAP, pressures of the budget, pressures on our farmers, pressures on food prices and, above all at this instant, pressure on jobs. Different parties are distilling their different positions. The Labour Party, many members of which have an undisguised and thus quite proper purpose, wish to get out of Europe and to smash any international institution that could prevent their realisation of that happy dawn—a Socialist Britain. I believe that they are wrong. We are not a smashing nation. We like instead to build.
Then there is that uncertain and amorphous flock—the unprincipled yet gay and gentle central souls whose approach to Europe is marked by the grace, subtlety and posture of Veronique, the young French model destined for stardom on the small Italian screen.
For ourselves, the Conservatives in the Conservative Party, we believe that Britain is best, but that in a large and sometimes brutal world some things are nicer done together. We are in the EEC, and we shall probably stay in. But if we do, by the lakes and mountains of the CAP it had better get a whole lot better. We seek, and we shall have, reforms.
Next after determinating the first essential to the achievement of reform is information. Many of us over the months have attempted with stuttering success to draw knowledge from the Government and from the great pandjandrums of the Berleymont. In the Chamber I have on several occasions asked my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to explain to me and to those curious within the nation the consumer costs of the MCAs. It is sad that one so fit and so talented should suffer from partial hearing. Had he heard, I am sure that I would have had my answer.
Other questions must be asked and must be answered. How much does the French farmer cost the British housewife over and above the burden of the Brussels budget? How many jobs have we lost to the cheaper currencies of Continental Europe? Why do the statisticians in the Department of Trade concentrate on trade including oil, rather than on the mega-dole queues caused by our massive deficit in manufactures? Those questions have been asked, yet, strangely, go unanswered.
Therefore, I feel that the sensible and proper thing must be to amend the European Communities Act 1972 through new clauses in such a way as to make the provision of objective and relevant information automatic—without chance, without interpretation and without, if I may say it, deafness.
I have time for one example. During the past three years each British pound fed into the Brussels financial washing machine has come back shrunk. Our return—our dividend—has been a mere 49p. What has happened to the remainder? Claret, perhaps, or comforts and interpreters for buxom Strasbourg—no doubt the worthy and well-loved Continental farmer—all have had their share and none—perhaps some—would grudge them.
At this moment we must take care because we are entering that season of projects larded with returning British money disgorged from the brimming Brussels coffers. There are those, alas, who would, through guile darkened by base and selfish motives, call such money European. MEPs, whistle-stopping on their way from Bogota to Sierra Leone, whose every waking hour must justify the glory of their own lame institutions may, just, be tempted. Throughout the country offices and pressure groups, some funded from the Brussels interest—again with our money—may mount a massive campaign of media manipulation to praise the greater glory of the EEC, going on about jobs saved and magnificent munificence.
In those circumstances, we who form the people's elected Chamber must be on our guard. We are the people's watchdogs. In the Bill it would be made necessary for each re-routed tranche of Brussels British

money to bear a prominent notification, clear to all, in the style of, in the manner of, almost like a Government health warning. It would read thus:
This money, returned to us from Europe paid for by the British taxpayer, represents £1 alone of each £2 so far committed.
We must trust the people, but first we must make sure that they know the facts. There will be a temptation among many of the more insistent aficionados of Brussels to try to portray every penny from Europe as European money. But the people must not be misled. They must be made aware that that money started in our pockets—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman wants to tell us what would be in his Bill if he were given leave to introduce it. I am still waiting to hear the detail of it.

Mr. Marlow: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I have just said that any money coining from Brussels, or the information with that money, should carry a warning so that the people are fully aware that it is British money returned from Brussels and that it is a dividend merely of £1 for every £2 that we have so far expended.

Mr. Russell Johnston: rose—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman indicated to me that he wished to oppose the Bill.

Mr. Johnston: I hoped that the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) would spend rather more of his limited time telling us precisely what he intended to do rather than simply disparaging what various people, perhaps for reasons that he disagrees with, have been trying to do for the best for Britain in European institutions. The House must remember that what the hon. Gentleman proposes—an amendment of the 1972 Act—quite simply is not practical. It is political nonsense to suggest it.
The Opposition Front Bench, whose members are notably absent, proposed that the 1972 Act should be repealed. That at least is a perfectly practical proposition. I profoundly disagree with it, but it is possible and practical. Equally, it is practical to say that the Treaty of Rome could be amended by agreement. But the hon. Gentleman is suggesting some sort of unilateral amendment to the Treaty of Rome that is impractical and impossible. I hope that no Opposition Members, holding the views that they do—with which I disagree, but which are perfectly straightforward—will support such a proposition.
What the hon. Gentleman proposes is dishonest.

Mr. Marlow: Oh, no.

Mr. Johnston: Oh, yes. The hon. Gentleman knows the commitment of his party to the Community: he has been told so many times in the House, in my presence, by the Lord Privy Seal. He knows that many members of his party, like myself, are dissatisfied about certain of the workings of the EEC. But he knows that to pretend that some amending legislation would solve that problem is not true. Since he came to the House he has tried to build up, with some success, a reputation as a direct and forthright—not entirely concise, but forthright—Member of Parliament. He would gain more respect in the House if he came clean and said that he wanted out of the


Community rather than fluffing around and pretending that he could produce amending legislation. That is genuinely not true—

Mr. John Carlisle: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I shall take the point of order later. We usually hear one hon. Member in favour of and one hon. Member against the motion without interruption.

Mr. Johnston: The hon. Member for Northampton, North bemoans the lack of control that the House has over Community legislation. He specifically mentioned that. What is he doing about it? As he is a member of the governing party and presumably, therefore, has some influence in these matters, he should direct his attention to the fact that in terms of scrutiny of European legislation it is an unpalatable but recognised fact that the most impressive scrutiny comes not from this elected Chamber but from the Scrutiny Committee in another place. That is something that the House should consider.
The hon. Gentleman treated us to some references to the trade figures for the remainder of the Community. He has gone over those matters several times. I readily accept his point that oil distorts the position. But he failed to face up to two simple fundamental points. First, despite our poor economic performance—for which he cannot blame the Community—the volume of our manufacturing exports to the Community, especially in the new industries, has continued to increase. Secondly, if he doubts our ability to negotiate a fair deal with friendly countries which, according to him—I heard him say it'—need us more than we need them, how on earth does he expect to conclude a better deal with other countries? That is a quite incredible idea.
We get a bad deal from the CAP; I accept that, and do not argue about it. But if we build our alternative, as the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) did recently, on the assumption of a world surplus in food—which is a pretty ropey assumption, which I do not accept, and a narrow plank to tread—a crop failure this summer in the USSR would put all those calculations at naught. It is worth remembering that the capacity of the Community to give Poland food in the present situation has added greatly to the stability of the situation in Europe.
I shall not repeat the complete impracticability of the amendment proposed by the hon. Gentleman. You rightly drew attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that the hon. Member said little about what was in his Bill. He attempted the same exercise in July last year. We have still to see what the Bill might contain. It would have been helpful to explain what it contains.
I ask the House to reject what the hon. Gentleman said. Britain's problems are political, not national. Hon. Members may laugh. As an individual citizen, I would be considerably happier if my lot in the Community were determined by a President called Helmut Schmidt rather than in this country by a Prime Minister who was the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn). The future of Britain lies not in political unilateralism but in co-operation.

Mr. Speaker: I shall take the point of order before I put the Question.

Mr. John Carlisle: With respect, Mr. Speaker, you stopped my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton,

North (Mr. Marlow) because he was not keeping to the subject of his Bill. The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) then made a vicious attack on my hon. Friend's character. Surely he should have been stopped for the same reason.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has referred to a vicious attack having been made on the character of the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow). No one in the House would dream of doing such a thing. If he did, the hon. Member for Northampton, North would deal with him, or I would intervene. If one hon. Member wanders, unfortunately it tempts the hon. Member who is opposing him to do the same, although the two hon. Members wander along different paths.

Mr. John Farr: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I did not think that it was a vicious attack on my hon. Friend. It verged almost on the sadistic.

Mr. Speaker: Clearly the hon. Member does not live in Wales if he thinks that what the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) said was sadistic.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business:

The House divided: Ayes 128, Noes 178.

Division No. 108]
[4.12 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Allaun, Frank
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Graham, Ted


Bennett, Andrew(St' Kp'tN)
Grant, George(Morpeth)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Griffiths, Peter Portsm' thN)


Bidwell, Sydney
Hamilton, James(Bothwell)


Blackburn, John
Hardy, Peter


Body, Richard
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Hawksley, Warren


Brotherton, Michael
Haynes, Frank


Brown, Michael(Brigg &amp;Sc'n)
Heffer, Eric S.


Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)
Homewood, William


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n&amp;P)
Hooley, Frank


Canavan, Dennis
Huckfield, Les


Cant, R. B.
Hughes, Mark(Durham)


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Hughes, Robert(Aberdeen N)


Carmichael,Neil
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Janner, HonGreville


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
John, Brynmor


Cohen, Stanley
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Cook, Robin F.
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Cowans, Harry
Jones, Dan(Burnley)


Crowther,J.S.
Kerr,Russell


Cryer, Bob
Lamond,James


Cunliffe,Lawrence
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Cunningham, Dr J.[(W'h'n)
Lloyd, Peter(Fareham)


Davidson, Arthur
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)
McCartney, Hugh


Deakins, Eric
McDonald, DrOonagh


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
McKay, Allen(Penistone)


Dempsey, James
McNamara, Kevin


Dixon, Donald
Mc Taggart, Robert


Dormand, Jack
Marks, Kenneth


Dover, Denshore
Marlow, Tony


Dubs, Alfred
Marshall, D(G'gowS'ton)


Dunlop, John
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Maynard, Miss Joan


Eadie, Alex
Mikardo, Ian


Eastham, Ken
Miller, Dr M.S.(E Kilbride)


Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)
Moate, Roger


Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)
Molyneaux, James


Fletcher, Ted(Darlington)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W' shawe)


Forrester, John
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland


Foster, Derek
Mudd, David


Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh
Newens, Stanley






O' Neill, Martin
Stott, Roger


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Pawsey, James
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Pendry, Tom
Thomas, Dafydd(Merioneth)


Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Powell, Raymond(Ogmore)
Torney, Tom


Race, Reg
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom


Richardson, Jo
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Roberts, Gwilym(Cannock)
Walker, B. (Perth)


Rooker, J. W.
Watkins, David


Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
Weetch, Ken


Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)
Whitlock, William


Sheerman, Barry
Wigley, Dafydd


Shepherd, Richard
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Short, Mrs Renée
Winnick, David


Skinner, Dennis
Young, David (Bolton E)


Soley, Clive



Spearing, Nigel
Tellers for the Ayes:


Spriggs, Leslie
Mr. K. Harvey Proctor and Mr. John Farr


Stoddart, David





NOES


Adley, Robert
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Alison, Michael
Emery, Peter


Alton, David
English, Michael


Ancram, Michael
Eyre, Reginald


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (S'thorne)
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Atkins, Robert(PrestonN)
Fairgrieve, Russell


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Faith, Mrs Sheila


Banks, Robert
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Beith, A.J.
Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Forman, Nigel


Berry, Hon Anthony
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Best, Keith
Freud, Clement


Biggs-Davison, John
Gardiner, George(Reigate)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Glyn, Dr Alan


Braine, Sir Bernard
Goodhart, Philip


Brittan, Leon
Goodlad, Alastair


Buck, Antony
Gorst John


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Gower, Sir Raymond


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)
Gray, Hamish


Cartwright, John
Grieve, Percy


Chalker, Mrs.Lynda
Grist, Ian


Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul
Gummer John Selwyn


Chapman, Sydney
Hamilton, Hon A.


Churchill, W.S.
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Clark, SirW. (Croydon S)
Hawkins, Paul


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hayhoe, Barney


Clegg, Sir Walter
Heddle john


Cope john
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Corrie, John
Hill, James


Cranborne, Viscount
Hogg, Hon Douglas(Gr'th'm)


Dorrell, Stephen
Holland, Philip(Carlton)


Douglas-Hamilton, LordJ.
HomeRobertson, John


Durant, Tony
Hooson, Tom




Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Rathbone, Tim


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)


Hunt, David(Wirral)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Hunt, John(Ravensbourne)
Rhodes James, Robert


Hund, Hon Douglas
RhysWilliams, SirBrandon


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Johnston, Russell(lnverness)
Ridsdale, SirJulian


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rifkind, Malcolm


Kershaw, Anthony
Roberts, M.(Cardiff NW)


Kimball, Marcus
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Roper, John


Knox, David
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Lamont, Norman
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Lang, Ian
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Lawrence Ivan
Shelton, William(Streatham)


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Shepherd, Colin(Hereford)


LeMarchant, Spencer
Shersby, Michael


Lewis, Kenneth(Rutland)
Silvester, Fred


Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W' loo)
Sims, Roger


Luce, Richard
Skeet, T. H. H.


Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)
Speed, Keith


McCrindle, Robert
Spence, John


MacGregor, John
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


MacKay, John (Argyll)
Squire, Robin


Macmillan, Rt Hon M.
Stanbrook,Ivor


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Major, John
Stevens, Martin


Mates, Michael
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Mather, Carol
Stradling Thomas, J.


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Tebbit, Norman


Mayhew, Patrick
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thompson, Donald


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Thornton, Malcolm


Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Trippier, David


Moore, John
Trotter, Neville


Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Viggers, Peter


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Waddington, David


Myles, David
Wainwright, R. (Colne V)


Needham, Richard
Wakeham, John


Nelson, Anthony
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Newton, Tony
Wall, Patrick


Normanton, Tom
Walters, Dennis


Nott, Rt Hon John
Watson, John


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Wells, Bowen


Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)
Wheeler, John


Patten, John(Oxford)
Whitehead, Phillip


Penhaligon, David
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Percival, Sir Ian
Whitney, Raymond


Porter, Barry
Wilkinson, John


Price, Sir David(Eastleligh)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Prior, Rt Hon James



Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Tellers for the Noes:


Radice, Giles
Mr. Robert Maclennan and Mr. Cranley Onslow.


Raison, Timothy

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day — Consolidated Fund Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller), I am sorry to have to remind him that the scope for discussion is narrow. He will be able to discuss only the reasons for the increases outlined in the Vote.

Orders of the Day — Belize

Dr. M. S. Miller: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for the clear indication of the limit of my remit. I was hoping that your successor would be in the Chair by now and that he would not know quite as much about the limit of the discussion.
I see that you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, are now in the Chair. I shall apply myself as best I can to the task before me. It is the first time that I have spoken in the House since you were appointed to that illustrious seat. It is, therefore, appropriate for me to offer you my sincere congratulations.
This subject is the only one in the so-called series of debates. It is appropriate to raise it shortly after a statement has been made on Belize. My purpose in raising the subject is to try to ensure that that little country does not get a raw deal in the months and years to come.
Aid to Belize has been given by the British Government for a long time. In 1975 the net transfer of aid was about £2¼ million. By 1979, the last year for which I have figures, the amount had increased to over £7 million. The £7,454,000 gross comprises almost £7 million of financial aid and £½ million of technical co-operation. Included in the financial aid is £6,771,000 of project aid—aid to establish new or expand existing production and infrastructure facilities—leaving only £95,000 of non-project aid, all of which is used for disaster relief.
I am informed that disaster relief is one matter to which I may refer this afternoon, but let me first point out how important money for that purpose is to a country such as Belize. Belize suffers many natural disasters. It is frequently hit by hurricanes, often of great intensity. In 1961 hurricane "Hattie" devastated large areas, including Belize city, which I visited three years later, in 1964. The disaster caused over 300 deaths, and that in a country with fewer than 100,000 inhabitants at the time. 
The Supplementary Estimates allow for small increases in the proposed aid for Belize. They come under three sub-headings:
Assistance after disasters", development grants and "Service overseas and Regional Technical Co-operation Programmes".
The reference to "Assistance after disasters" appears in the Supplementary Estimates (Classes II-XVII: Civil) at page 17. Belize is grouped with Algeria, Bangladesh, Cameroon, Cayman Islands, Dominica, Fiji, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Mozambique, Nepal, St. Lucia and

St. Vincent. The sum allocated for all those countries is very tiny. What proportion of the allocated increase will go to Belize?
As far as I can make out, the development grants for Belize appear at page 45, under the heading "British dependent territories", either under the sub-heading "Loan" or "Grant", or perhaps both. The overall sum is substantial, but, again, what will be the apportionment to Belize?
I am not sure where I can find the third group. It is supposed to be concerned with service overseas and regional technical co-operation. Will the Minister tell me where I can find the previous apportionment and the increase, if any, earmarked for Belize in the Estimates that we are discussing. In 1979, £587,000 was spent on regional technical co-operation and service overseas; £114,000 was spent on student training, £460,000 on personnel overseas and £13,000 on other services. May I have more information from the hon. Gentleman on that matter?
The Minister is the first to recognise the importance of overseas aid. I am sure that the whole House greatly appreciates both his present interest in these matters and the interest that he has shown over many years. We derive satisfaction when we know that aid is put to good use. There has been a great deal of criticism, some of which is not particularly justified, about overseas aid that finds its way into the coffers of people for whom it is not intended. Belize is a democratic, multi-racial country, which has a parliamentary system similar to ours. It is intensely pro-British and intensely preoccupied with maintaining British links. I am sure that any aid that is accorded to it from the British Treasury is appreciated and put to good use.
I am sure that the Minister will agree with me that this small country of about 150,000 inhabitants, with few natural resources apart from the willingness of its people to work, deserves our thanks for its long-standing accord with Britain and the British people and our assurance that we shall not forget it when it proceeds to independence.
When a director of a firm leaves after long and good service the custom is to give him a golden handshake. I ask the Minister to accord a similar golden handshake to Belize, so that she will not be disadvantaged in the new world in which she will find herself when she becomes independent. The people of Belize are worried about their future. There are certain matters over which the British Government have no control and about which they cannot concern themselves, but the Government have considerable control over overseas aid. I ask the Minister to accept the necessity of retaining the good will of this small country and of helping its people in every way that we can as a nation.

Mr. Edward Lyons: I am sorry to learn that the Minister for Overseas Development is to leave the House at the end of this Parliament. Although I do not agree with his views on the Common Market, he has been a brilliantly resourceful anti-Market gladiator for many years. He is a master of the art of parliamentary questions in Opposition. My only regret, now that he is a Minister, instead of a Back Bencher, is that he had so much more liberty to entertain us on the Back Benches than the discipline of Government allows him now. He will be sadly missed by both sides of the House.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) on introducing this topic and being successful in obtaining the debate. One of the more endearing characteristics of the House of Commons is that it can spare time from issues involving millions of people to consider issues involving small numbers of people—in this case the country of Belize with a population of about 140,000 and one of the smallest capital cities in the world, Belmopan, with a population of only 4,500.
I understand from figures that I have seen that the cost of maintaining a British Army presence in Belize to defend the country is about £25 million annually, whereas the total gross revenue of the country is about £36 million. So we are dealing with a small country with a small population, I understand, although I have never been there, few streets are paved, there is no television—some people might think that a blessing—and a great deal needs to be done to develop the infrastructure to help the people to get on their feet. As I understand that 63 per cent. of all money for capital development projects comes from Britain, the continued assistance of Britain in that area is crucial.
Earlier this afternoon the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office spoke of the heads of agreement that had been reached, one of which involved exploration for minerals. Reference was also made to oil and the possibility of joint efforts between Guatemala and Belize in this respect. I hope that British aid will be available for facilitating the search for and the discovery and development of these resources, which will be of great value to those countries and to the world at large.
The Brandt report bears generally on the problems of countries such as Belize. The West has a duty and a responsibility to ensure that such countries are enabled to develop and to build up their standard of living. There is a bonus in that policy for the West. An increased standard of living in Belize will mean that Britain can hope for a share of the orders for goods which a higher standard of living will enable the Belizeans to buy.
I hope that Britain will continue to discharge its responsibilities in that part of the world and will continue to support the Belizeans, not only in relation to their security but in relation to their development, not only as a moral duty but from self-interest, for the sake of the stability of that part of the world and because Britain has been there an awfully long time. There was a considerable period when we did nothing to assist the improvement of the standard of living and the conditions of life in that country. Our record in recent years has been considerably better, and I hope that independence will not prevent the continuance of those efforts to improve the situation in that small and rather impoverished country.

The Minister for Overseas Delevopment (Mr. Neil Marten): I first thank the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons) for his kind remarks about my decision not to stand at the next election. It was most courteous of him. When I came into the House 21½ years ago I remember going into the Tea Room and being surrounded by some over-70s who offered me "very sound advice, my boy". I shook my head and decided that I was not going to be here when I was 70. If I were to stand at

the next election that would be the case, so I decided that I had better hand in my notice to my constituency in good time.
I am sure that the people of Belize will welcome this debate, initiated by the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller). I think that much of his interest came about through four visits, I believe it was, on behalf of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. That illustrates the great value of the CPA, which I hope will go from strength to strength.

Dr. M. S. Miller: I thank the hon. Gentleman. I also visited Belize with the Select Committee on Defence, and therefore saw another aspect of the country and its problems.

Mr. Marten: I hope that Select Committees, too, will go from strength to strength.
I am sure that the people of Belize will welcome what has been said in the debate. We shall certainly take great notice of what has been said by people who know Belize.
There is just one point that I should like to pick up from what the hon. Gentleman said—that the benefits of aid sometimes do not go to the people for whom it is intended. That may have been so many years ago—we have all heard many stories about that sort of thing—but I assure him that now we very carefully appraise any aid project and monitor it, cost it and watch the costs very carefully, so I hope that that sort of thing does not happen now. Of course we cannot control everything all over the world when we are giving aid to over 130 different countries, but we do our best to monitor it and see that nothing goes astray.
First, I propose to explain the reason for the Spring Supplementary Estimate provision required for Belize in the Overseas Aid Vote. The sums in question are not large. There is an item of £792, which was provided under the disaster sub-head C7 to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and covered the use of a Ministry of Defence helicopter for flood relief operations. I pay a tribute to those who take part in these operations, because we have a very high standing in the world in providing aid following disasters.
Secondly, the provision for development aid under subhead C2 of the Overseas Aid Vote requires increasing by £164,000, to £4 million. This is to provide fully for expenditure arising from existing commitments, including hurricane rehabilitation aid agreed in 1979–80 but not all spent in that year.
Thirdly, there is an increase for technical co-operation under sub-head D1 from £700,000 to £925,000, mainly to permit the engagement of consultants to help plan a new Belize city hospital.
In calling for a debate on Belize the hon. Member for East Kilbride has provided an opportunity to discuss the question of aid following independence. Figures have not yet been decided, but I assure the House that aid will continue for a number of years and that we are considering a suitable aid package, or what is sometimes called a golden handshake, on independence. This will need to be discussed with the Belize Government when the date for independence is fixed. That is the usual way of going about it.
An important factor to be taken into account is the signing of the heads of agreement for a settlement of our dispute with Guatemala over Belize, which heads of


agreement were published yesterday and announced by my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) this afternoon. I stress that the full implications of the settlement will not, however, be known until the detailed arrangements have been negotiated over the coming months.

Dr. Alan Glyn: I have been to Belize recently. We are all grateful for the incredible ability of my hon. Friend the Minister of State—the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley)—in achieving what he has. My hon. Friend has just said that aid will be limited, and I think there are two things that really matter. The first is that aid will be given over a reasonably long period, because it will take a long time for the people of Belize to get on their feet. Their economy is by no means strong. Secondly, the assurance that British troops will be there for a long period will provide some form of stability. If that is combined with a long-term aid programme it will enable Mr. Price, or whoever succeeds him, to establish a much stronger base for the Government.

Mr. Marten: I am grateful for that intervention because it enables me to reaffirm that our aid programme will be a fairly long-term one, and one in which the people of Belize can have confidence. On the question of troops, my hon. Friend will have heard my hon. Friend the Minister of State. We cannot give any commitment at this stage.
Our existing aid to Belize is given in the context of a healthy and expanding economy. There was strong economic growth in the 1960s and 1970s, and with a per capita gross national product of US$ 870 in 1978 Belize is one of the richer developing countries in the Commonwealth Caribbean. It has tremendous potential for development, and with under-population in rural areas there is considerable scope for agricultural expansion on land not yet cultivated.
The major crop at present is sugar, which accounts for over 20 per cent. of the gross domestic product and 60 per cent. of domestic exports, but there are also prospects for increasing exports of citrus fruits, bananas and livestock. The economic and social infrastructures are adequate, but there remains a real need for continuing aid in this area.
We are already helping with roads, the Caribbean Development Bank has assisted with a deep water port, and the Canadians and we have both helped with projects to provide mains water to the major towns. The Belize Government have plans for a new hospital in Belize city, for which finance may come from the European Development Fund, which is the fourth major donor of aid to Belize.
Our project aid in 1978–79 and 1979–80 was £3·6 million and £5·7 million respectively, although these figures include about £3 million rehabilitation aid following hurricane "Greta", in addition to the normal aid programme. Technical co-operation expenditure in the same two years was £516,000 and £642,000.
All this aid is administered by the British Development Division in Bridgetown, Barbados, and Belize also benefits, as I have already indicated, from British aid provided through the Caribbean Development Bank and the European Development Fund.
Most of the project aid in the last few years has been spent on a major road project, hurricane rehabilitation and a rural development project in Toledo, the southern part of Belize. Other projects include town water supplies, smaller road projects, a police training school, the Belize river ferry and radio equipment.
The technical co-operation includes training in the United Kingdom and the Caribbean region, and financial assistance, with nearly 40 British expatriate staff.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will the staff that are sent from Belize to Britain in future have any cover under the National Health Service? Will the hon. Gentleman's Department be prepared to take up health insurance? What will happen to these people?

Mr. Marten: That one has bowled me middle stump. I shall write to the hon. Lady when I have researched the issue.
I return to aid following independence. I repeat the assurance that I gave earlier, that arrangements will be made for development aid and technical co-operation to continue for a number of years yet. We hope and expect that aid to Belize from other sources will increase as a result of full independence. I do not envisage that that will affect British aid expenditure.
The hon. Member for East Kilbride has done a service to the House in raising this issue in the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill. It has enabled me to explain what aid we are currently giving to Belize and to state clearly that there is some way to go yet before we finalise any aid settlement on independence.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House; immediately considered in Committee.

Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 93 (Consolidated Fund Bills) and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

London Hospital Medical Schools

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Newton.]

Mr. John Wheeler: I am glad of this early opportunity to raise the issue of the future of St. Mary's hospital medical school, in my constituency. The Government are no doubt aware that as a result of their policy on overseas students' fees the University of London has had its resource allocation reduced this year by £6·3 million, of which £3·8 million has fallen on postgraduate medical schools. It is now being suggested that the St. Mary's hospital medical school will have to close.
I was especially concerned and surprised to hear that the university senate was considering this course of action, not least because it goes against a number of recent expert recommendations on the organisation of the university's faculty of medicine.
For example, in February 1980 the Flowers committee reported on medical education in London. Having spent much time and effort in obtaining evidence from all points of view, the committee strongly supported the future development of St. Mary's as a school and as a hospital to serve the local population. Furthermore, the committee's recommendations are compatible with the recommendations of the Department of Health and Social Security, the London Health Planning Consortium and the regional health authority.
St. Mary's hospital medical school has a fine tradition of solid achievement. It can boast two Nobel Prize winners—Sir Alexander Fleming, who discovered penicillin, and Professor Rodney Porter, who won the prize for his work on how the body protects itself against infection—work that is of great benefit to all countries of the world.
In the early 1970s, with an academic staff of under 100, the school had no fewer than four fellows of the Royal Society on its staff. The school's academic record is good. Its output of research publications per member of staff is higher than that other medical school in London and its examination record is well above average. In addition to these factors, the school costs comparatively little to run. About 28 per cent. of its income comes from money that is independent of the University Grants Committee. That income is used for research projects. It is won in open competition and constitutes a higher proportion of funding than that for any of the other London medical schools. The closing of the school would not only be sad and wasteful; it would have a disastrous effect on St. Mary's hospital itself.
The medical school provides the hospital with numerous support services—for example, a pathology department to diagnose illnesses. It also enables the hospital to attract the highest-quality staff. The best junior doctors are recruited, because they want to work under the prestigious professors in the medical school. The best technical staff are recruited, because they want to be trained with the latest sophisticated equipment, which is provided by the medical school. Nurses benefit from the lively social environment of the teaching hospital.
Perhaps the people to benefit most from the medical school are the patients, who can be treated with technology that is 10 to 15 years ahead of that which would be found in a non-teaching environment. The main hospital is about

to be rebuilt and the medical school would be an integral part of it. To all intents and purposes the hospital and the school are inseparable. Without the school the hospital would deteriorate beyond recognition. In effect, it would be crippled.
This is a matter of the deepest concern to me and my constituents. St. Mary's hospital is a general hospital, which provides excellent bread and butter routine services for the community. For example, it deals with hernia repairs and appendicitis conditions that could not be treated adequately by the other specialist hospitals in the area. About 75 per cent. of its patients come from within three miles of the hospital.
The demands on the hospital made by my constituents are heavy. Social deprivation in Paddington is considerable and 20 per cent. of all families with dependent children are headed by lone parents. About 25 per cent. of births in the area are illegitimate, compared with a national average of 9 per cent. Severe house crowding results in real health care problems. Psychiatric cases and drug abuse cases are of a level well above the national average. All these facts, which can be verified by statistics issued by the Department of Health and Social Security, combine to put an enormous burden on the local hospital. St. Mary's hospital has therefore become essential to the health care of my constituents.
The Government have said that decisions on the closing of London medical schools are for the university senate. I understand that the senate is to meet on Wednesday 25 March, when it will most probably make a decision about the future of the London medical schools. The vice-chancellor of London university is to address the academic board and school council of St. Mary's hospital on Monday 23 March, when I know that important decisions will be reached.
Unfortunately, it is not as simple as that. The closure of St. Mary's hospital medical school would have repercussions far outside the academic world. It would cripple the hospital and destroy the health care that is essential to my constituents. To some it would be literally a matter of life or death. I urge the Government not to wash their hands of this matter but to face the real problem and to accept part of the responsibility for resolving it.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: We should be grateful to the hon. Member for Paddington (Mr. Wheeler) for raising this subject because it is obvious that with the enormous pressure being put on medical care in the inner cities the closure of St. Mary's hospital medical school will be of enormous importance not only to the people who normally receive training in that school but to those who live in the area.
I declare a mild interest, because a member of my family works in the hospital. I hasten to add that my views are not coloured by hers.
What concern me deeply are the far-reaching suggestions for the amalgamation of medical schools. When I was a very young doctor's wife I remember that a decision was taken to cut down the number of medical students being trained. Consequently, in a short time there were not enough doctors to fill the relevant posts. At present, we have a difficulty because many Commonwealth doctors are, almost by accident, treated as second-class citizens. They fulfil house jobs and senior house jobs in the Health Service. One of the Government's


avowed objects has always seemed to be to produce sufficient home-grown doctors to fill all those posts. It is totally contradictory on the one hand to say that we are concerned about the number of doctors produced and their quality and on the other hand to talk about taking piecemeal decisions on medical school training.
There are many questions for the Government to answer. The subject should be dealt with in a very much broader way than by shutting down some units, irrespective of the overall plan for medical education in the inner city. It is not simply a matter of training doctors. St. Mary's hospital contains many acute beds and provides positive health care for those living in the area. There is a suggestion that the ambulance, rehabilitation and rheumatology units will be closed. In fact, the rehabilitation and rheumatology units have already been closed. It was always understood that the changes would come about when other hospitals in the area had developed alternative services.
I make it clear that I am not in favour of maintaining any old hospital irrespective of the standard of care. It is depressing that in 1981 there are so many new office blocks, many of them standing empty, and so many inferior hospitals. The same energy should have been put into building new hospital units that has been put into developing property for the profit of a small section of the community. I am not saying that irrespective of the quality of the health care we must keep hospitals open and working. However, before the Government go ahead with the closure of a unit that is providing a generally needed service they must plainly demonstrate that alternative facilities are available. I understand that the ambulance station is modern. It is not housed in inferior buildings.
We have recently had clear evidence that the health care provided for those in the inner city is in many instances inferior. Too many general practitioners work from lockup shops. Too many people have difficulties in finding a doctor. There are instances where deputising services are routinely used. All those factors mean that a general unit in the area inevitably takes a large amount of the emergency work. If there are not sufficient primary health care units, inevitably the local population relies on the casualty department for basic services. That will be materially affected if parts of St. Mary's are closed.
In considering the provision of health care and the further training of doctors we must bear in mind that lumping together medical training facilities does not automatically produce a higher quality of care. The Government are free with their statements about how they want to support the National Health Service. The Ministers have a little monologue that goes: "Look, we are giving the same amount of financial aid to the National Health Service that our predecessors gave". They carefully skate over the fact that over the past five years there has been a 50 per cent. cut in capital costs. They do not spell out the point that by increasingly seeking to use the facilities of the National Health Service to cross-subsidise medical facilities in the private sector they are merely helping the cash flow of the private units.
If there is excess money from National Health funds to pay for facilities in the private health sector, that money should be spent on upgrading hospitals such as St. Mary's. It should be used to improve the facilities for the citizens of Paddington. It should not be used to support private hospitals to enable them to make a profit.
In a nutshell, the problem of the inner city is that of old hospitals, inferior facilities and, too often, management decisions which are dictated far too much by a sort of book-keeping exercise. Because of the staff cuts, we know that there will be problems in providing services. In an area such as Paddington, the local social services committee finds it virtually impossible to replace the facilities that once were provided by hospitals. The personal social services are now so badly overloaded that local authorities are faced with an intolerable choice. Do they cut down their services, their home helps and social service workers to such an extent that they cannot provide cover, or do they put such a burden on the rates that the ratepayers, many of them pensioners living in substandard housing, cannot afford to pay them? That is the practical effect of the Government's policies.
The Government's attitude to inner city care leaves a great deal to be desired. There is another problem with hospitals such as St. George's. The Secretary of State is anxious to draw a great deal of money back into the National Health Service. Why, then, have we heard so little about what is happening to the NHS site at St. George's hospital? A planning application has been made to Westminster city council for that site when it is not wholly owned by those who have applied for planning permission. There is clear evidence that, far from getting the best price for the hospital, because of considerable difficulties in negotiations, the Department is allowing Grosvenor Estates to benefit at the expense of the taxpayer.
I realise that it is difficult for the Minister to answer questions off the cuff, but I want him to take time in the forthcoming weeks to tell us exactly what is happening about St. George's hospital. How much is being paid for the site? How much will the Health Service benefit from the sale? Where will that money go? Why should it not be spent on inner city care and on an expansion of the facilities at a hospital such as St. Mary's?
I return to what to me is the relevant point. Why are the Government now prepared—apparently in advance of the decision to be taken on the Flowers report—to close down one unit? I know that we shall return to the old argument "It is not us but them". The truth is that the Government determine the size of the grant, they lay down the priorities, they decide what will happen in terms of staffing and they have a responsibility to tell us what they will do about St. Mary's. They have a responsibility to tell us what they intend to do about medical training. They certainly have a responsibility to tell us how they will provide other facilities for people in the area.
It is all very well to say that a couple of miles down the road alternative facilities will be available. The Minister is a sympathetic man, which is one reason why he so frequently appears at the Dispatch Box to defend the indefensible. He knows that in that area many old people and one-parent families with young children will find it a burden. They do not have ready access to motor cars, and must rely in times of emergency on getting themselves to the nearest casualty unit as quickly as possible, especially if the level of GP cover is not of a high standard
In his reply, I hope that the Minister will tell us "Ah, but we can immediately demonstrate that we are replacing these facilities. We are not simply doing what you might think, being hard-hearted and, in effect, saying that this has nothing to do with us and that decisions on the overall financing are for the people concerned". I hope that he will


say that it is his intention to demonstrate, through a large injection of capital into the Paddington area, that he cares about facilities and is prepared to replace the existing substandard hospitals in the area. If he cannot do that immediately I hope that he will not go blindly ahead with a closure programme which will affect not only the medical school but the number of acute beds and casualty facilities for the local population.
If the Minister cannot do so, he will be demonstrating only too clearly the Government's strategy for the NHS, which is that they will not seek to demolish the NHS by a head-on attack but will use a much more subtle approach. They will dig away at the foundations of the Health Service, cut down on facilities and make it more difficult for people to use the service.
Having done that, like the Prime Minister, they will then say "Well, of course, we expect people to use the money in their pockets to provide for their own health care." If that is the best that the Minister can do, he would have been better served by staying in his elegant Ministry.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Sir George Young): Anyone who calls my Ministry elegant is quite misinformed. It is one of the humbler Government buildings on the South Bank which, in theory, is injecting new life into the Elephant and Castle.
I congratulate my hon. Friend for raising the question of the future of St. Mary's hospital medical school. I endorse what he said about the school and its staff and I commend the way in which he so eloquently defended the interests of his constituents. As he said, the debate is aptly timed, because the decision on the St. Mary's medical school is imminent.
I begin by dealing with some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody). I would not dissent from much of her analysis of the health problems in London. She was quite perceptive in identifying some of the shortcomings. It is difficult to reply in detail to the position relating to St. George's. That is a complex problem, because the site is in multiple ownership and there are a number of restrictive covenants. I shall write to the hon. Lady outlining where we have got to in our discussions on the future of that site and shall try to put her as fully in the picture as I can.
The hon. Lady would have more credibility when speaking on health matters had 229 of her hon. Friends not voted last night against the increase in tobacco duty on cigarettes, for which there was the most compelling health reasons. I think that it was with some embarrassment that some of her colleagues found themselves voting against the Government.

Mrs. Dunwoody: The Minister tempts me, and I am grateful to him for giving way. Many hon. Members abstained from that vote. Had he been able to carry the same urgency into his discussions with his fellow Ministers, the tax on cigarettes would not have been as low as it was. Therefore, it ill-becomes the hon. Gentleman to attack the Opposition.

Sir George Young: I shall not twist the knife any deeper into the wound. It is quite clear that the Labour Party is as divided on health policy as it is on a number of other issues.
In a moment I shall say something about the amount of money that we shall be investing in Paddington as an earnest of our intent to improve health facilities there. The hon. Lady said that we were maintaining spending at the planned levels that we inherited. It is difficult to reconcile that part of her speech with what she said towards the end, when we were accused of undermining the very foundations of the National Health Service. We are also trying to complement Health Service resources by encouraging private provision and by tapping the resources of the voluntary sector.
We have no intention of reducing the number of students trained in London—roughly 1,200 out of 3,800 in Great Britain as a whole. The university is considering mergers in order to provide training more economically. On primary care, we are awaiting an expert report from a study group under Professor Donald Acheson, which has been set up to advise on what needs to be done in this area.
I now turn to the main subject of the debate, which is the future of St. Mary's medical school. Perhaps I could begin by clarifying where responsibility lies, because, as both hon. Members implied, responsibility is split between two Government Departments. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has responsibility for funding undergraduate medical education and for determining the overall level of intake of medical students. But, within agreed levels of intake and standards laid down by the General Medical Council, it is for London university to determine how to provide undergraduate teaching. That university is a self-governing chartered institution, which is solely responsible for its own internal organisation.
Although the various medical schools have their own identities and their own governing bodies, they are a part of the university and receive their funds from it. It is the senate and the court which must decide their future. But we do not for one moment pretend that what happens to medical education can be divorced from the Health Service. The two are so closely interlocked as to be in some instances inseparable. That was one of the themes that my hon. Friend developed. It is for that reason that the two bodies that have been looking closely at Health Service problems in London—the London Health Planning Consortium and the London Advisory Group—have included representatives of London university. Those representatives have played an important part in formulating the proposals that both bodies have put forward.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has a direct statutory responsibility to make available facilities that are needed to support clinical teaching. This responsibility is discharged on his behalf by the health authorities, particularly those that manage the great teaching hospitals. Not only do they allow students to see patients on their wards; much of the clinical teaching that students receive is given by consultants employed by the Health Service. For that part of the undergraduate course, teaching is very much shared between the Health Service and the medical schools. Staff of the medical schools provide clinical services to patients,


and in many cases support services—such as pathology—are provided entirely by the medical school, although on a repayment basis.
The broad position is that while the university must make its own decisions—we cannot take those decisions for it—we would expect it to give due weight to the impact of its actions on the Health Service. The university and the Health Service have been involved in the various committees and bodies that have been set up to plan the future of health services in London.
What is it that London university proposes to do? Here there is still some uncertainty. That the university needs to make changes in the organisation of its medical school seems clear. The university faces three main problems. First, it faces financial pressures. For some years the university has been conscious that medicine was accounting for an increasing proportion of its total expenditure. The more recent impact of the phasing out of subsidies for overseas students which my hon. Friend mentioned, and the general curtailment of university expenditure, have added to the pressure to rationalise provision in medicine.
Secondly, the university had made plans that would, if carried through, have led to its increasing its total intake of medical students above the nationally agreed target levels. Some medical schools in London made a temporary increase in their intakes in the early 1970s, which will need to be reduced when the expansion of St. George's hospital medical school is complete.
Thirdly, the medical schools were concerned about the prospective reduction in the Health Service facilities to be available to support their clinical undergraduate teaching.
I am sure that hon. Members who represent London constituencies, and perhaps others, will have seen the recent report by the London Advisory Group on the provision of acute hospital services in London. That report concluded that a major reduction in the number of acute hospital beds in London was required because of the continuing reduction in the population and because patients now need to stay in hospital for shorter periods. But the advisory group also felt that if used to the full the remaining acute facilities would be sufficient for London university's needs. That is not to say that there is no need for the university to change. There may still be implications for the distribution of students in different parts of London. I shall say more about that in a moment.
Faced with these problems and these pressures the university, on the advice of its medical schools, concluded that a complete re-examination of the organisation of medical education in London was called for and that it might be necessary to consider the closure of one or more schools.
Accordingly, a working party was set up under Lord Flowers' chairmanship, which reported in February last year. Its report proposed the amalgamation of the 34 existing medical institutions within the university into six large schools. Two undergraduate schools—the pre-clinical schools at King's college, London and the Westminster medical school—were to be closed. The report was hotly disputed, and the subject of its contents was raised many times in the House. I see my hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster South (Mr. Brooke) in his place. He fought a formidable campaign within and outside the House for the future of the Westminster hospital school.
After a long period of consultation, the medical faculty of the university, through the joint medical advisory committee proposed a revised package which changed some elements of the Flowers' recommendations but supported many of its conclusions. This package was endorsed by the university's joint planning committee and put to the senate last October. While endorsing the general approach of the proposals and encouraging schools to pursue them where agreement existed, the senate was unwilling to accept some of the conclusions without further evidence.
A further working party was therefore set up, under Professor Leslie Le Quesne, of the faculty of medicine, to examine the costs of a range of different options. That working party's report, which was circulated last month, does not make recommendations but provides further factual evidence on which the university can now consider how to proceed. The report has been considered by the joint medical advisory committee but at this moment we do not know what proposition the senate and the court will be asked to consider when they meet on 25 March arid 1 April respectively.
One proposal being considered—and this is what has come to my hon. Friend's attention—is that, as a result of the further evidence, St. Mary's hospital medical school may be included in a joint school with University college and the Middlesex hospital medical school. Such a joint school would not, I understand, simply involve the physical concentration of all the facilities on a single site but might involve a reduction in the number of centres used by the schools concerned. For St. Mary's, the main issue seems to be whether pre-clinical teaching should continue at the Praed Street site.
What form the proposal will finally take remains to be seen. What is beyond doubt, however, as my hon. Friend made clear, is the quality of the St. Mary's hospital medical school and the important contribution that it has made over many years to the development of medicine and to the provision of services to patients. One of the great dilemmas of the London scene, and one that makes any proposal for radical change unwelcome, is that so many of London's medical schools can point to a noble history and a valuable present contribution. What is most important is that in making changes that may well be unavoidable the university should look to the future and make changes that will leave a settled pattern of medical education that can rely on continued support from the Health Service.
There can be no doubt that St. Mary's hospital, Paddington will continue to be a major centre for the provision of acute hospital services. Like my hon. Friend, we remain fully committed to the current plans for developing the hospital. Whatever decisions are made by the University of London about the rationalisation of medical education institutions in London, there is a pressing need for improved hospital services in the Paddington area and these must go ahead.
This is a major redevelopment involving expenditure of more than £21 million from the North-West Thames regional health authority's capital funds, as well as central contributions from the University Grants Committee and my own Department. As I shall try to explain, it is a key feature in a number of important strategies for the delivery of health care in London. It may help to allay my hon.
Friend's fears if I outline briefly some of the reasons why we regard the hospital development at St. Mary's as being so important.
My hon. Friend will know that over the past few years there has been a considerable amount of debate in London on how to achieve a better balance of health care provision. The problem, which is generally recognised and accepted, may be stated in short in this way: how can London's acute hospital services be developed in such a way as to maintain acute services for local populations, to sustain medical education and at the same time to release resources to enable services for the priority care groups—particularly the elderly, the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped—to be developed from their current inadequate levels of provision?
A number of people have looked at this, and the problems are indeed complicated. That is why we set up the London Advisory Group—a high-level body, including the chairmen of the four Thames regional health authorities, representatives of the TUC, the GLC, the London Boroughs Association and the health professions—to advise on the development of London's health services.
One of the group's first tasks was to look at the crucial question of how acute services should develop in the light of the overriding need to switch resources to other care groups. As I have already mentioned, the group reported in February this year that there was scope to make significant reductions in the capital's acute bed stock in the light of population movements and increasing efficiency in hospitals. It also outlined a strategy for achieving these changes, recommending that acute services should be concentrated on the major hospitals in London and that the savings on acute services should be found in the other smaller hospitals. The report identified St. Mary's, Paddington as one of the major centres for concentrating acute services.
The Government have accepted that as a broad strategy. In welcoming the report, my hon. Friend the Minister for Health said:
London has seen huge investment in major hospitals, including the major teaching hospitals. We must use these hospitals fully to cover the health needs of the people who live in inner London and maintain the greatness in London's health care". 
St. Mary's, Paddington is an integral part of that strategy and its future is assured.
As my hon. Friend graphically pointed out, however, the current condition of the facilities at St. Mary's is inadequate, and it has become increasingly difficult over recent years for the hospital to meet the requirements of a district general hospital and also of a teaching hospital in its existing buildings. Part of the building is over 100 years old, the layout has become almost unworkable, space is inadequate, and communications are very poor. Despite these difficult conditions, the standard of service provided has remained consistently high. As my hon. Friend pointed out, the hospital provides an important local service to the community of Paddington as well as a number of more specialised services. I will not dwell on the reasons why successive redevelopment schemes for the W2 site have failed to get off the ground since the war, but the condition of the fabric of the hospital and its vital future as a provider of acute services to that part of London make it imperative that the scheme goes ahead this time.
I have laid great stress on the importance of St. Mary's and its redevelopment within the general strategy for London's health services, but there are a number of other reasons why this scheme is needed at this time.
The redevelopment forms an important part of the North-West Thames regional health authority's strategy for redistributing resources within the region. The regional health authority anticipates that the redevelopment, together with the consequent rationalisation of acute services within the district, would produce an annual revenue saving of some £1·9 million. These funds are essential not only for the development of priority services within London, but, as an integral part of the region's overall financial strategy, to allow it to fund acute hospital developments in the county areas of the region£Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire£where there is a shortage of acute services and where a number of important schemes are now coming on stream and are planned for the next eight to 10 years.
Looking at the problem more locally, the redevelopment also plays a key role in the strategy for the North-West district of Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster. That district serves a resident population of 157,700, expected to decline to 139,000 by 1986. The strategy is a twofold one—to improve the acute services, taking into account the reducing population and changing patterns of demand and clinical practice; and to remedy outstanding deficiencies in local health care provision, notably in services for the elderly and the mentally ill, and in community health services.
Phase 1 of the rebuilding of St. Mary's, Praed Street, which should be completed by 1986, will provide a children's department with 60 beds and a child development centre; a psychiatric hospital of 60 beds and 80 day places; 240 acute beds, mainly surgical; eight operating theatres; an intensive care unit; an accident and emergency department, and various other clinical support and ancillary departments. These developments will enable St. Mary's, Harrow Road, to be closed, although some facilities may continue to be provided on part of the Harrow Road site. A joint working party of the community health council and the district management team explored a number of possibilities, and the area health authority has recently agreed a proposal that an experimental community hospital project should be set up for two years if the funds can be found. That will be in keeping with the main strategy, under which the district will have two acute general hospitals—St. Mary's, Praed Street and St. Charles'.
There is a second major capital development, which is fundamental to the strategy at St. Charles' hospital. This long-term strategy is accepted locally. However, the area health authority now wishes to bring forward the closure of about 127 acute beds at Harrow Road, representing about one-third of the hospital's total bed complement, and a consultation document was issued in January last year.
In September last year, the North-West district community health council notified the authority of its opposition to the closure and submitted an alternative strategy. As both the area and the region have reaffirmed their support for the proposal, it is now with my Department.
The health authority wants to bring the reduction of beds forward, for a number of reasons. The district has too many acute beds, and reductions now at W9 are consistent


both with current work loads and with the London Advisory Group strategy, which involved the concentration of acute services for this part of London at W2 and at St. Charles'. This would achieve a better balance of services within the district. Secondly, the district has recurrent over-expenditure to reduce, and it has to take steps to bring down its rate of expenditure in order not to leave its successor district with a deficit.
I know that my hon. Friend is concerned that the proposal should be agreed as quickly as possible, so that the district plans can proceed. My hon. Friend the Minister for Health will come to a decision on this as soon as possible.
I have attempted over the last few minutes to explain why, for a variety of reasons, we see a redeveloped St. Mary's hospital as having a vital role in the future of London's health services, in terms of the wider strategy for the capital's services, of the North-West Thames financial and planning strategy, and of the important place that the hospital has within its own district's plans.
I assure my hon. Friend that whatever the decisions of the University of London about the organisation of the medical schools we are fully committed to this redevelopment. My hon. Friend was right to stress the close interrelationship between academic and service accommodation at St. Mary's, and the redevelopment is designed to further this integration.
My Department has made it quite clear to the university that substantial costs would be involved in any major replanning and that this would be undesirable at such a late stage. But there are two further points that I should like to make. First, we would not allow NHS services to be adversely affected by any withdrawal of vital support services. Secondly, it seems to me inconceivable—I hope that this provides reassurance to my hon. Friend—that the university will not continue to use St. Mary's hospital as a major centre for clinical teaching, wherever the siting of the schools may be. To do so would be a foolish waste of what will be excellent facilities, well sited for patients and students. The benefits of the teaching environment, which my hon. Friend mentioned in his speech, should be retained.
I shall make absolutely certain that before any decision is arrived at my hon. Friend's speech is made available to those who have a decision to take, so that they can be well aware of the high feeling and the strong arguments that my hon. Friend has made in support of the medical schools.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: Am I to understand, therefore, that if any hon. Members have a similar Adjournment debate, all our remarks will be taken into account by London university?

Sir George Young: I have never noticed any reluctance on the part of hon. Members generally to have Adjournment debates on hospitals. Where important decisions are about to be taken I have made a point of making sure that the speeches of hon. Members are sent to the regional health authority and the area health authority before any decision is made.

Preventive Medicine

5 33 pm

Mr. Robert Rhodes James: May I say at the outset how much I welcome the presence here tonight

of the hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) as a result of her new responsibilities? Because we have had other responsibilities, on which we were opposed to each other, I am delighted to see her in her new post. I am also delighted to be introducing a very brief debate on a subject which I know to be very close to the hon. Lady's heart—that of preventive medicine, with particular relevance to the problems of developing countries.
My interest in this subject began intellectually—I hope that my hon. Friends will not be too disturbed about this—when I read the accounts of Engels of the situation in Leeds in the 1840s and the cholera outbreaks there. In my own lifetime—in which I have seen the death of a younger brother and the crippling of a sister through poliomyelitis— there has been a revolution as a result of the use of antibiotics, which would have saved my brother's life. But, more important than that, I have seen a revolution in preventive medicine, and the understanding of preventive medicine.
In talking of the problem of cholera in Leeds in the 1840s we are not talking simply about a medical problem. We are talking about a whole constellation of problems in which housing, hygiene and understanding of living were as important as purely medical responses.
Particularly in this, the International Year of Disabled People, I should like to draw the attention of the House for a few minutes to a simple point. When we talk about disabled people we tend to talk about people who are already disabled, or, indeed, to believe that we are talking about people who are disabled for their entire lives. Most people become disabled for one reason or another, and in many cases that disablement could have been prevented.
In dealing with this subject, one should not speak locally, or even nationally, because the problems are much wider than that. The most glittering achievement of the United Nations was the elimination of smallpox. That elimination, achieved in seven years at a very small cost, could have taken place only because the countries of the world had the political will to destroy that bestial disease.
I suggest to the House that what has been done with smallpox can and should be done with other diseases. Bilharzia, diphtheria, malaria, measles and poliomyelitis are among the great killers. They are all preventable if the political will exists among the Governments of the world.
Poliomyelitis was a terrible killer in this country until the 1950s. It is still a killer elsewhere in the world. It is important to recognise what could be achieved in positive terms in development and in health prevention for literally millions of children if this immunisation programme could succeed. Instead of giving grants to disabled people, perhaps it would make better sense to try to prevent certain kinds of disablement occuring in the first place. Therefore, although these diseases are national problems, and although they afflict our children or our grandchildren—or can do—they are also international and can be properly dealt with only by an international response.
It is said in this country that we do not have to worry any more about poliomyelitis—three doses of vaccine on a sugar lump and a child will be protected for life. That is absolutely true. The trouble is that, through complacency, people are forgetting to make use of this basic and readily available protection for their children. But for millions of families in developing countries poliomyelitis is a dreaded disease that strikes at everyone, but principally at children and young people. For those who survive an acute attack, their disabilities usually mean


that they are unable to work or to be independent in any way, and that they require specialised treatment and facilities. In many countries those are simply not available.
I declare an interest—but not a financial one—as the vice-chairman of the Save the Children Fund "Stop Polio" campaign, in which a very distinguished colleague of mine is the wife of my hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development—the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten). We work very hard to produce vaccine and to deliver It to certain countries in the world on an experimental basis, in order to meet this scourge.
It is not generally recognised that poliomyelitis is a huge and international problem. At least half a million cases occur each year among children. I emphasise the words "at least". Those are the ones that we know about. Alas, the number of cases is increasing. Paradoxically, an increase in the number of cases occurs as living standards improve and as children do not achieve the immunity that they had previously gained through exposure to polio viruses early in their lives. That is a curious and tragic paradox.
It is vital that as living standards improve—even marginally—we should tackle the problem. The Save the Children Fund "Stop Polio" campaign has launched itself in Malawi, Swaziland and Lesotho and is co-operating not only with the Governments concerned but with the World Health Organisation. The purpose of the campaign is to ensure that all children are immunised against this terrible disease.
I am sure that the House is aware that it takes seven months to create the vaccine. It has to be refrigerated from the moment that it is created until the moment that it is put into a child's mouth. The maintenance of the cold chain from the laboratory to the child represents an acute problem, particularly in Africa. In addition, we hope to expand our operations into Asia. However, these problems are being met and resolved.
It is remarkable that a small and not very rich British charity should lead the world in this operation. I have stressed this point because in the International Year of Disabled People I hope that we shall begin to think more about the prevention of disablement—poliomyelitis is only one example of a disabling disease—rather than about the cure. Indeed, this is also the year of the Mexico summit on the Brandt commission.
When I worked for the United Nations for four years and saw this country from abroad I was struck by the fact that the British people and British Governments underestimate the extraordinary qualities that they possess. Britain has a unique knowledge of and expertise in diseases, particularly tropical diseases. That expertise is recognised all over the world, yet British people are often unaware of it. Therefore, in the International Year of Disabled People I hope that the Government—with the support of both sides of the House—will recognise that preventive medicine, both in Britain and abroad, should be one of our dominant themes. I hope that my particular concern—poliomyelitis— will be one of the main items for consideration.
I am comforted by the fact that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is to reply, because last time I raised an Adjournment debate with my hon. Friend I was concerned about the maternity hospital in Mill Road, Cambridge. I

urged the building of a new hospital. My hon. Friend gave me a most courteous but not very positive reply. However, many things stemmed from that debate. Last week building work began on the new maternity hospital. I hope that that is a good omen and that my hon. Friend will respond positively to the appeal made not only by me, but by many others. I recognise the limitations that are imposed on him, but in this year of all years we should consider the role of preventive medicine with considerable vigour and interest.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) on bringing this subject to the attention of the House. He has dealt both nationally and internationally with the importance of preventive health measures, which promote health and well-being and prevent ill-health and handicap.
In addition, I welcome my hon. Friend's reference to the Mill Road maternity hospital. For a long time my aunt was a distinguished gynaecologist and obstetrician at that hospital. I always think that I should have represented my hon. Friend's constituency, because my family has brought most of his electors into the world. However, I have managed to recruit one of my aunt's babies—perhaps she is one of my hon. Friend's ex-constituents—as my agent. She is now going into the maternity business herself, and I wish her luck.
I shall concentrate on the importance, both in this country and overseas, of making people aware of the measures that they can take to promote health and wellbeing. My hon. Friend the Minister has distinguished himself by leading campaigns, both inside and outside Government, on smoking. The hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) has often joined that campaign and dealt with me when I have strayed from the straight and narrow.
We must not only occasionally demand action from the Government; we must use the Floor of the House to remind members of the public—whether they are professionals in health care, involved in voluntary organisations, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge, or ordinary families—that they will find that information is available about the action that they should take in their own best interests. As some hon. Members may know, I am associated with a new body called "Family Forum". It is designed to bring people together to consider not only health measures but the other measures that people can take. I refer not only to the suggestions that can be made to Government but to an awareness that the primary determinant of health and wellbeing in a family is the family's own actions.
The Court report on child health services and the parts of the Black report that did not involve the spending of large sums of money show that a family's actions often make a great difference to handicapping accidents, whether in the home or outside. I am sure that hon. Members will remember the campaigns on perinatal mortality and on avoidable handicap at birth and in the early years of life. The French programme is perhaps the most sophisticated project on avoiding birth handicaps. It reached its target levels of achievement within about 18 months and not—as was expected—after seven years of Government programmes. The discussions on ways of avoiding handicaps and on the targets that could be achieved dramatically raised public awareness and


consciousness. The people of France have benefited. Obviously, adjustments in Government policy can also make a difference. However, the most significant difference can be achieved by increasing public awareness.
I remind the House and the public that there are two simple ways of avoiding the distress that afflicts so many. We should deal with smoking and with the wearing of seat belts. There is a great deal of public concern about issues such as nuclear power. If people realised that only one-tenth, one-hundredth or one-thousandth of the casualties that arise from smoking or from accidents in which seat belts are not worn might arise as a result of nuclear power, they might accept that we should concentrate more on certain risks.
We do not consider risks realistically. The avoidable risks that we run in our every-day behaviour are far greater than the risk attached to events that have never occurred in Britain. I hope that this debate will make people aware of what can be achieved both overseas and in Britain.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I congratulate the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) on securing another Adjournment debate. There has been a slightly surprising turn of events and, as a result, we have time for this debate. I support the hon. Gentleman's concern for preventive medicine in developing countries. In addition, I echo the comments made by the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) about preventive medicine in Britain. However, I shall concentrate on the problems of developing countries rather than on those that we face, which are—at least in part—the problems of an affluent society. The problems in the developing world are clearly much greater. I believe that this is behind the motivation of the hon. Member for Cambridge in seeking to raise this issue.
I should like to quote from the Brandt report. an important document that has twice been debated in the House by concerned hon. Members on both sides. Somehow or other that concern has to be translated into action. We shall see a continuing gap between the affluent nations of Western Europe and the American continent on the one hand and the developing countries on the other, unless we can translate into action some of the ideas in the Brandt report.
I should like to quote from page 14, where the report says:
The prospects which might open up if only part of the unproductive arms spending were turned to productive expenditure on development are only slowly dawning on people. The annual military bill is now approaching 450 billion US dollars, while official development aid accounts for less than 5 per cent of this figure.
The report goes on to give four examples, one of which is connected with the subject raised by the hon. Member for Cambridge. The report states:
The military expenditure of only half a day would suffice to finance the whole malaria eradication programme of the World Health Organisation, and less would be needed to conquer river-blindness, which is still the scourge of millions".
That is the military expenditure for half a day. As the third in its list of examples, the report states:
For the price of one jet fighter (20 million dollars) one could set up about 40,000 village pharmacies
We are currently buying about 380 Tornado jet fighters at roughly the price quoted in the Brandt Commission's

report, that is, at around £10 million each. We have to look at our own priorities. The fourth example quoted in the Brandt report is:
One-half of one per cent. of one year's world military expenditure would pay for all the farm equipment needed to increase food production and approach self-sufficiency in food-deficit low-income countries by 1990".
That alone would help to curb disease. People who are not well fed are open to attack from disease because they do not build up a natural resistance. Disease can attack them much more easily and rapidly—and it does.
I want to emphasise that we have to tackle this issue ourselves. I wish to make the point that the Government have cut back overseas aid by 21 per cent. That is entirely mistaken. Among that 21 per cent. I am sure that there must be an element of assistance for the provision of facilities to prevent disease and to prevent the onset of deprivation of one sort or another.
Putting aside the moral dubiety of cutting overseas aid to the very poorest developing countries, such a policy is not to our commercial advantage. As countries develop they will look to us to provide them with further technical assistance facilities, and the provision of those facilities will help us, commercially and industrially.
I believe that foreign students coming to our universities help to gain knowledge from our facilities and take that knowledge back to their own countries. That is another important aspect of our sharing in the attack against the onset of disease in developing countries. Whether it is straightforward knowledge of better medical facilities, indirect assistance, such as improved agricultural facilities, or simply some sort of engineering knowledge, it is of advantage, both from a moral and commercial view, if the Government are prepared to tackle this issue on the basis of setting an example.
I wish to touch briefly on a suggestion in the Brandt report–

Mr. Rhodes James: I do not wish to become involved with the hon. Gentleman in a debate about overseas aid policy, although it is fair to point out that the present overseas aid budget is considerably higher under this Government than under the previous Government. Not nearly enough of it, however, is devoted to preventive medicine. That is true of the budgets of other Governments. That is the point that I was trying to make. It is implicit in the Brandt report. I regret only that it was not given sufficient emphasis.

Mr. Cryer: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point about the allocation of the overseas aid budget. That is a matter that the Government must take into consideration.
I wish to conclude my remarks by referring to a suggestion in the Brandt report for a tax on military expenditure. On page 122 the report states:
The treaty under which Latin America was declared a zone free of nuclear arms could be an interesting model for consideration by other regions. Measures to curb the global arms race have made only limited progress. They may have prevented some programmes from expanding and certainly the major powers have come closer together in appreciating the dangers and the costs of the escalation of arms production. Bur real disarmament, actual reduction of weapons and expenditure levels, remains elusive.
On page 123 the report adds:
Nonetheless, military expenditures and arms exports might be one element entering into a new principle of assessment for international taxation, and efforts to generate appropriate information for this purpose deserve encouragement.


That is absolutely right. The developing nations must get together in order to stem the arms flow to the developing countries which are poor, and, in some cases getting poorer, but still find financial facilities available for the purchase of arms. On this planet we are now in a position in which if we fail to live together we shall die together.
There is a great moral imperative. It is difficult to defend a decision, for example, to spend over £25 million—an enormous sum for these poorer countries—on the installation of cruise missiles or £5 billion on the installation of Trident submarines. When we talk about the development of preventive medicine in developing countries—an important subject, on which hon. Members on both sides of the House feel deeply—the fact is that the developing countries say "A large proportion of your expenditure goes on means of extermination which, hopefully, will never be used". They also say "You are not setting a very useful or good example in priorities". I would much prefer to see the release of that expenditure in aid to the developing countries of the world—to set, if one likes, a moral example in non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Whatever view one takes of nuclear weapons, the fact is that we live in a dangerous age. It is not getting easier. Expenditure on nuclear weapons and conventional weapons becomes greater with each year that passes. Some initiative must be taken to break through the momentum that the arms race is gaining of its own accord. I believe that the Government could and should set an example to the rest of the world by saying that they are not prepared to spend £5 billion on Trident and that they intend to restore the 21 per cent. cut in overseas aid.
The hon. Member for Cambridge said that it was more than the Labour Government would have spent, whatever the cuts. I should like to think that a Labour Government would still preserve that level of progressive expenditure for overseas aid whatever difficult circumstances existed at home, because we like to think of ourselves as international Socialists, who feel concern for people all over the world. I also hope, even at this late stage, that the Government can be pushed away from their militaristic posture and be persuaded against the expenditure of this enormous amount, which will probably be doubled by the time that the missiles are actually stored in the submarines, if that dreadful day ever comes.
This is an important moral imperative that should bring strength. The point of view is universally held, not necessarily by the Labour Party but by people of all political views or of no political views, and by the Churches, that it is a scandal that so much money is spent by the West on nuclear weapons while two-thirds of the world's people are short of food, clothing and shelter. It means, of course, that preventive medicine is all the more important, because basic deprivations leave people more open to the ravages of disease.
The Brandt report, which I know is supported enthusiastically by some Conservative Members but also receives its fair share of sneers from the Conservative Benches, contains some ideas which are worthy of our support. It indicates paths that Governments can follow. I realise that the Minister may not be able easily to answer the argument, having been propelled into an Adjournment debate at very short notice, but I must tell him that the

Government are not setting a good example to the rest of the world in the priorities that they are pursuing. It would be welcomed by developing countries if they shifted their priorities so that some of the money that they have allocated to be spent on the means of extermination could go into a programme for survival, including the preventive medicine that was mentioned by the hon. Member for Cambridge.
We have had a short but useful debate. The topic that it concerns will not go away. I cannot marshal all the arguments at this short notice, but they relate to the most important question of all—whether we live together or die together. With the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the greater expenditure by this Government we are set on a course that is beset by grave dangers. Let us pull back and support a programme of survival for humanity. In so doing, I am sure that our influence in the world will be immeasurably enhanced.
I do not believe that people who are deprived of food, clothing, shelter and medical facilities are much impressed by a Trident missile programme. If we were to embark on a programme of hospitals, irrigation facilities and village pharmacists we should be able to win friends and influence people, if that is what the Government's foreign policies seek to do. So if we are to win friends and influence people in the developing nations of the world we need to help them. They will be impressed by help, and not by some of the expenditure that this Government, alas, are carrying out.

Mr. John Farr: I want to get back to the purpose of the debate. The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) spent 10 minutes or so telling us what a short debate we are having and then concentrated almost entirely on the sins of the British Government in deciding to defend ourselves in a proper way against nuclear attack. I believe that most of us, certainly those on the Conservative Benches, believe that if we are under threat, as we are, from the East, we must be properly defended against any form of conventional or nuclear attack.
I come back to the subject of the debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) on his initiative and alertness in securing this important debate on the use of medicines in the developing world. I join him in welcoming the hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) to her new position. We look forward to seeing her there for a number of years. I am sure that the whole House recognises that she has a fund of knowledge of these matters, and we look forward to hearing her contributions.
I intervene in the debate to say something about the use of preventive medicine in developing countries, and in particular in India and Bangladesh. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge, as chairman of the appropriate committee, is an expert on the subject. I was in India a week or two ago, and I discovered that some of the preventive medicines that are used there against malaria are no longer effective because the malaria mosquito is continually developing a different strain. It is therefore essential that there should be continuous and permanent research into the type of preventive medicine that is used—the injection—in combating malaria in India and Bangladesh and some of the other diseases to which my hon. Friend referred.


While preventive medicine has performed remarkable achievements in India and Bangladesh, at the same time it is helping to swell a growing and obvious menace on the horizon, namely, the growing population of those countries, with their continuously growing demand for more food and more money to be spent on them. The more effective that preventive medicine is in developing countries such as Bangladesh and India, the more infant mortality rates drop, as is happening in India, and the more maternal mortality rates drop, and the longer people live.
Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister can assure the House that he recognises that, hand in hand with the progress of preventive medicine in developing countries, there is a proper programme of family planning. The Family Planning Association in India is an example to the rest of the world. It is run almost entirely by volunteers, headed by its president, Mrs. Wadia. It has worked for about 37 years in Bombay and has had remarkable success in reducing the population growth in India. But, despite that success, and despite the work of countless thousands of volunteers throughout the country, it is likely that the population of India will approach 1,000 million by the turn of the century.
The Family Planning Association in India, and to some extent in Bangladesh, almost entirely through volunteers encourages mothers and wives to learn the benefits of a limited family. "Two will do" is a phrase that is gaining publicity. Mothers join clubs to perform plays and sketches showing the benefit of having only two children, compared with five or six, and the relatively poorer conditions in which larger families live.
We visited some of the villages in the countryside around Bangalore and saw some of their projects. Whole villages are taken over by a team of skilfully led volunteers. All the married couples in some of the villages are volunteers in limiting family numbers. Guided by the Family Planning Association, some villages have for a number of years been reproducing at only replacement rate. It is essential to have a full and effective family planning link with any schemes to improve medicines in developing countries.
We saw almost the same situation in Bangladesh, although the history of family planning in Bangladesh is not as old as it is in India. We took a car trip to a town called Mymemsingh. After a long and dusty journey we were welcomed by a large number of ladies who were wearing lapel badges proclaiming that they were members of Mymemsingh Childless Ladies Club. They were all part of the family planning scheme in Bangladesh.
I was encouraged to discover that the family planning scheme, particularly in Bombay, is not designed only to bring population numbers down. A counselling service to childless couples operates in Bombay and in other towns. The Family Planning Association has made it clear that it wishes all families to have two children. The counselling service is a great help to many childless couples. Some of the counsellors who offer family planning advice to childless couples have remarkable records of success. Unless the Governments of the world co-operate and recognise and assist family planning in a proper way, it is likely, as the hon. Member for Keighley said, that some of the dangers of excessively large populations, of which we were warned in the Brandt report, will arise.
I was lucky to attend the world food conference in Rome, where a number of Ministers from developing and developed countries spoke on this subject. After listening

for only a day or two one could detect the general pattern of opinion. Unless the number of extra mouths represented by the number of children born every day is reduced the agriculturists will not be able to cope by growing increased amounts of food.
The key to the problem is not disarmament, as the hon. Member for Keighley claims. The key to helping the Third world is education. With a better education the people of the Third world could understand and apply the techniques of modern food production and help themselves to grow more food. If we could improve the appalling literacy rate in India—it is only 27 per cent.;we would have a chance of getting over the benefits of family planning and bringing home to people how a smaller family would help towards a better family life. Education, which is the key, cannot be had without money. I believe that the Government must provide that money to the limit of their ability.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) is well known for his genuine commitment to the interests of the Third world. He introduced our first debate on the Brandt report. He feels strongly that we do not do enough in Britain. I agree with him. I find it dispiriting that the Government take the attitude that they do, not only to the provision of overseas aid but in particular to the provision of services.
The hon. Member for Cambridge said that we could be doing many other things to assist the prevention of disease in the Third world. He was reminding us that we have money, expertise and ability. Even if it were necessary to cut the amount of money available to the Third world—and I do not think that Britain has ever achieved the targets that a civilised nation should achieve—we should look hard at the effect of some internal policies on other countries.
Only last week students from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine lobbied hon. Members. They are worried about the effect of Government policy on fees for overseas students. They fear that their remarkable unit, which is known throughout the world for its suberb level of provision, will have to close or so curtail its activities that it might find it difficult to continue. That is shameful.
If a nation with the standard of health care enjoyed by Britain does not offer assistance in training doctors from overseas, does not provide information about new techniques and the development of new drugs and vaccines, it is behaving dis
astrously. We are not even behaving in a normal, civilised Christian manner.
As the hon. Member for Harbrough (Mr. Farr) said, both education and services are essential. There are many reasons why we should examine our consciences. Some multinational companies have argued strongly with the Government about the health warning on cigarette packets. They have sought to avoid doing anything to restrict advertising that noxious product, tobacco. They do not apply stringent standards when selling tobacco in the Third world.
There is clear evidence that the multinationals, which are responding to pressure in the so-called civilised Western countries, are using techniques to sell tobacco in Third world countries when it has been proved to be capable of causing hundreds of thousands of deaths a year. Television in Britain has been prepared to put forward


arguments that the House has not had time to develop. Recently there was a moving and frightening programme about the sale of tobacco products by multinationals in South America. It proved conclusively that there is astonishingly little evidence that Western countries, who make the largest profit from the sale of those products, are prepared to consider the interests of those to whom they are selling.

Mr. Cryer: Will my hon. Friend remind the House that multinationals are going along exactly that same path in the sale of baby milk products? They are usurping the natural breast-feeding process to improve sales of their products. That is having a retrogressive effect because it produces more disease due to the lack of washing facilities for babies' bottles, and so on.

Mrs. Dunwoody: My hon. Friend, as is his wont, has stolen one of my best points. I was about to come to the whole question of the sale of powdered milk in Third world countries. We sell not only tobacco elsewhere in the world, but many other products. I do not necessarily agree that multinationals are deliberately seeking to dissuade mothers from breast-feeding. The difficulty is simple. An undernourished mother, extremely tired, doing a hard physical job in high temperatures, inevitably finds it difficult to feed her baby. She will therefore look for means to supplement the food. Anyone who has dealt with even a well-fed British baby will know that mothers have a habit of looking for means to keep the baby quiet from time to time.
There is also the simple problem of hygiene education. I want to see ritain actively training many more village pharmacists. A simple amount of training could produce a fantastic result. In Africa we can see the work being done by individuals able to control a number of straightforward drugs, do simple first aid and teach people in the langauages and attitudes of the area in which they work to look after themselves in a better way. It is time that we imposed a code on the sale of products such as powdered milk from Western countries to Third world countries.
Inevitably, the education level of many of the communities is such that they do not always take care to use only absolutely clean water. The damage that can result from that is quite frightening. A few years ago the European Community found itself facing an intolerable problem. As part of its food aid it was handing large sums of money and large amounts of powdered milk to African, Caribbean and Pacific countries—only to find that because there was not sufficient tuition in the way that the powdered milk should be served it was doing positive harm. The Community took fairly active stops to ensure that the recipients of powdered milk understood how the products had to be used, and also that it could never be a substitute for human milk but should be used to boost the intake of food for babies.

Mr. Rhodes James: The villain of the piece is not the multinational companies, or the powdered milk; it is polluted water. That takes us back to one of the most fundamental problems of all. With great respect to the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) and the hon. Lady, it is easy to attack companies for manufacturing a product. The real issue lies in the basic poverty, pollution and

corruption of the environment in which people live, of which polluted and corrupted water is the most serious problem of all.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I do not think that we are in disagreement. I was not suggesting that the multinational companies deliberately set out to poison those buying their products. Obviously, that is nonsense. Nevertheless, they have a responsibility to ensure that simple education is provided, and that simple and straightforward instructions are supplied with their goods. With the example of tobacco, I am not sure that I want to be as generous to the multinationals as is the hon. Member for Cambridge. It is a different question. In the case of the supply of milk products, the expenditure of quite a small amount by the multinationals—a tiny percentage of their budget for advertising—should be used to ensure that those who buy and use their products are aware of the dangers. It would be a simple thing to do. It would not cost a great deal of money but it would save a great many lives.
There are good arguments for extending preventive medicine to the supply of vaccines and medicines. Britain has always endeavoured to export the very best standards of the National Health Service. There is a department dealing specifically with the provision of high quality information and services to Third world countries, to encourage them to ask for the right facilities, but it cannot provide sufficient health care if it does not have the money to do so. It is part of our problem, and certainly part of our responsibility, not only to lecture people on the health care that they should be providing, but to enable them to have access to bank loans and other money to give that help to those who most desperately need it. That is where the Government are falling down on the job in a specific way.
When the Government think about their expenditure on overseas students, when they examine the rates that they are now charging for education in Britain—which includes medical education, one of the most expensive courses—will they consider whether they cannot now admit that they were wrong, admit that they should not have put such a high cost on the provision of education, but should have been prepared to accept that it was one way to help the Third world constructively? When the Government look at the workings of the multinationals, especially those based in Britain, will they ask for the same safeguards for the marketing of their products in Third world countries as they are trying to achieve for Britain?
Above all, when, as a country, we offer help and advice to Third world countries, can we be sure that we do only those things, and provide only those services, for which we are asked? I find it sad that the Governments in Africa, Asia and many other countries are always happy to come to Britain to discuss the sale of arms and the provision of equipment for causing death. Can we not offer the same encouragement to those Governments to come here to seek to benefit from our expertise and to take back with them a very much better life for their people? That is the message that should go out from the House today. The families that we are happy to acknowledge as friends and dependants of Britain should be healthy as well as happy.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Sir George Young): I join other hon. Members in paying a tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) for his moving and


knowledgeable speech when he introduced the debate. He is an expert on the Third world, and he displayed that expertise very well during his opening remarks. He was kind enough to say that the last time he had an Adjournment debate on the provision of a new hospital in his constituency, within 12 months a new hospital was being built. Building new hospitals in England is difficult, but possible. The extermination of preventable disease in the Third world could take me a little longer.
My hon. Friend asked what initiatives had been planned for the International Year of Disabled People. On the specific subject to which he referred, we have plans for an international initiative this autumn on the prevention of disability. I think that my hon. Friend will wholeheartedly endorse that initiative. I shall return in a moment to some of the specific subjects that he mentioned in his speech.
My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) made some kind remarks about my attitude to smoking. He is right to emphasise the role of the individual in making sensible decisions about life-style. It is no good bullying and lecturing people into doing things that they do not want to do. Such decisions do not stick. We should give people the information on which they voluntarily come to sensible decisions about life-style. Decisions of that sort will stick.
My hon. Friend mentioned seat belts. I have always voted for the compulsory wearing of seat belts, and shall do so whenever the opportunity arises. However, we must be selective about the freedom that we seek to defend. The freedom to kill oneself in a motor car is not one that I should spend much energy defending.
My hon. Friend also talked about relative risks. I never cease to be amazed by the way in which the public become hysterical about threats to life that are so slight as to be almost fanciful, yet regularly ignore the real killers. Nuclear power is an example. In a typical year in Britain, the chances of dying from radiation are about 1:16 million. Of the actual risks from radiation, over 98 per cent. arise from natural causes or medical X-rays, while less than 2 per cent. arise from all other causes, including nuclear power stations. All over the world campaigns are mounted against the generation of nuclear power, but where are the mass demonstrations against smoking?
When I saw the hon. Member for Keighley rising to his feet I wondered how he would introduce cruise missiles in a debate on preventive medicine in the Third world. I should never have doubted his ingenuity, because, quite rightly, he found a clause in the Brandt report which linked the two subjects. Most of the hon. Member's speech was not directed at my Department, but was about defence spending. Last November the Government, when making some difficult decisions about public expenditure, cut defence expenditure and left health expenditure alone. Therefore, I am not sure that the hon. Member is right to grumble about the Government's priorities.
Having suggested that we should cut defence expenditure, the hon. Gentleman recommended a measure that would increase that expenditure by adding a tax to what we already spend on it. If one were to maintain the volume of defence spending, that would increase the amount of resources devoted to it. However, the hon. Member was right to say that we have a moral, economic and political interest in tackling the problems of the Third world.
I shall draw the hon. Member's remarks to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development

and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to see whether there is any new gem of information in the hon. Member's speech that might cause them to rethink or to write to the hon. Member in response to his arguments.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) had an interesting trip in India and Bangladesh. I endorse what he said about the need for more research into malaria. The School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine is playing a large part in monitoring the spread of chloroquine-resistant malarial parasites and is offering advice on the use of drugs that have been developed to combat the resistant parasites that he mentioned. Discussions are taking place about the impact of policy on overseas students. This year and last year a special fund was made available to provide transitional relief. Discussions are now taking place on what should follow.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough was right to say that there were implications for the population if we were successful in introducing preventive medicine, extending longevity and reducing infant mortality. If the rate of infant mortality fell, family size would also fall because parents would not need to produce so many children to ensure that a given number survived into adulthood. I am happy to say that I shall shortly meet the all-party group for population and development which is concerned with those problems. I shall speak to it, and I shall then listen to the remarks of its members to see in what further way the Government can help the initiatives that are taking place in India. I shall write to my hon. Friend at greater length about the Government's help in this matter.
The hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) urged us to take initiatives in areas which I believe are the responsibility of other Health Ministers. It is difficult enough to keep the show on the road in this country. If we were to assume the responsibility for health in other countries, as the hon. Lady implied we should, by, for example, insisting on various health warnings for cigarettes sold in South America or other countries, that would be an abuse of our power. However, we can make available to health departments and Ministers overseas the sort of information that we have here. We can explain the measures that we are implementing to tackle smoking, for example, and encourage them to adopt them in their own countries. As we do not have the power, we cannot insist that those who package or prepare their export products here do so in a way that we think is right. That is the responsibility of the receiving country. I see problems in adopting a slightly higher profile on the lines suggested by the hon. Lady.
With regard to baby milk, about three weeks ago I made an perceptive speech on the Adjournment in response to a debate initiated by the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley). The hon. Lady will be pleased to know that we are supporting a code of conduct that will be discussed at the forthcoming meeting of the WHO. If other countries support us in recommending that code of conduct, the abuses to which she referred will be curtailed. This country has played an important role in drawing up that code of conduct. The abuses that undoubtedly exist are not the responsibility of manufacturers based in this country. There is a role for us to play in the forum of the WHO, in encouraging that code of conduct to be adopted to avoid the senseless deaths caused by the indiscriminate and often illiterate use of baby milk powder.
The quality of life today owes much not to acute medicine but to preventive medicine. It is easy to forget that during the last century only six out of every 10 children grew to adulthood. If they survived childbirth, which was a hazard for mother and child, they then had to face diseases such as scarlet fever, measles, whooping cough and diphtheria. Other diseases struck at any age—diseases such as typhoid, cholera, tuberculosis and smallpox. Water supplies were frequently tainted with sewage and uncontrolled industrial waste. Our cities were dark with soot and smoke. Overcrowding and poor nutrition contributed more misery.
Public health achievements have contributed many improvements since that time. We took action to protect the public against the hazards of their environment. The sanitary reform movement ensured reasonably pure water supplies and the efficient removal of sewage by the late 1880s, and the virtual disappearance of enteric fever. There were Acts to control air and water pollution in the 1860s and 1870s.
Preventive measures such as vaccination and immunisation reduced the toll previously exacted by common infectious diseases such as TB, polio and diphtheria. About 99 per cent. of those diseases have now been eliminated. More recently there was the widespread acceptance of family planning, and there were improvements in antenatal care. Those initiatives have done more to improve the quality of life than does the more dramatic and expensive acute medicine that often hits the headlines.
We must pass on that basic information to the Third world. We must not forget that many of those measures were not achieved without controversy. For example, in the nineteenth century The Times was concerned at measures that were being taken to prevent further outbreak of cholera. It said:
We prefer to take our chance of cholera and the rest than be bullied into health. There is nothing a man hates so much as being cleaned against his will or having his floors swept, his walls whitewashed, his foul dung heaps cleared away".
There were battles to be fought even in those days on the familiar grounds of personal freedom and State intervention. The quality of life today owes much to measures designed to preserve public health.
In his opening remarks my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge referred to polio. Many hon. Members will recall the 1940s and 1950s, when poliomyelitis was common in this country. There were over 3,000 paralysis cases in 1957. Immunisation was first introduced in 1956, and the disease was brought under control. In 1979—the last year for which figures are available—there were only six paralysis cases in England and Wales. Of those cases, four acquired their infection abroad.
The uptake of vaccination against poliomyelitis is high. About 79 per cent. of children born in 1977 had been vaccinated by the end of 1979. There is no doubt that it is the high vaccination rate that is protecting our children from the disease. It is true that there is a certain, slight danger from vaccination to unimmunised parents when their child is vaccinated. That is why the Department advises unimmunised parents to be vaccinated at the same time as their children. However, very few cases of polio now occur in this country.
I believe that my hon. Friend has a particular interest in the activities of the Save the Children Fund in the fight against polio abroad. I should like to take the opportunity

to make particular mention of the work that the fund is doing and to congratulate it both on its original campaign and on its expansion to a wider immunisation programme covering measles, diphtheria and other killer diseases. We are well aware of the valuable work being done by the Save the Children Fund in assisting Governments in certain Southern African countries to established programmes of immunisation.
In addition, the World Health Organisation has set the ambitious goal of
Health for all by the year 2000",
now endorsed by the United National General Assembly. The organisation has identified immunisation against the major infectious diseases as one of the keys to the attainment of that goal. To that end the WHO has an expanded programme on immunisation. Its objectives are to provide immunisation for every child by 1990 against certain selected diseases—initially, polio, together with diphtheria, whooping cough, tetanus, measles and tuberculosis—and to promote national self-reliance in the delivery of immunisation services and regional self-reliance in vaccine production and quality control. I believe that it was through the officers working with the expanded programme that the Save the Children Fund was able to identify as in prime need of assistance the countries in which it is now working in Southern Africa.
On the technical side, the WHO's work includes developing effective vaccines and the "cold-chain" for the transport of refrigerated vaccines from manufacture to the field and their storage there, particularly in extreme tropical conditions. Our expertise has been very prominent in the whole of this work. For example, the WHO cold-chain support unit, which is about 65 per cent. funded by the ODA, has been remarkable in its success, from the development of cheap, locally manufactured, hand-carried cold boxes to the commissioning of an icemaker that can be used on dung or wood fires in the bush. There is also an organisational side since, as with other health measures, the basic work must be in the hands of local people. The intention of the expanded programme to promote national and regional self-reliance is an expression of that.
Finally, the WHO is making considerable efforts to mobilise resources in cash and kind outside its own budgetary financing on a United Nations-type basis. Thus, in addition to the £1·7 million that it has devoted to the expanded programme from its own resources, it has raised to date the equivalent of a further £1·7 million as voluntary contributions, with a further £2·2 million firmly pledged, but not yet fed into the programme. I believe that we all recognise that this is where bodies like the Save the Children Fund come in. We have received numerous indications from the WHO and from contacts abroad of the way in which its campaign has been so well received.
I hope that the organisations will continue to work closely with the United Kingdom departmental elements—which include officers of both the DHSS and the ODA—involved with the WHO in the expanded programme of immunisation, which is now being given such high priority. The WHO has demonstrated by its successful campaign to eradicate smallpox that it has the skills necessary to organise and manage a global campaign, although I recognise that the expanded programme of immunisation is a much more complicated business, which the WHO seems to be putting together fairly well now. I assure the House that Ministers and


officials in my Department play a full part at international conferences in doing all that they can to spread the gospel about preventive medicine overseas.
In congratulating those who have worked so tirelessly to achieve success, I must emphasise that prevention remains the responsibility of us all—Governments, health authorities, health workers throughout the world, voluntary bodies and, last, but not least, ourselves as individuals. The Government are pledged to play their part.

Mr. Rhodes James: I thank the Minister and all who took part in the debate for their contributions.

Colleges of Education (Scotland)

Mr. John Maxton: As this is the first time that I have spoken since your elevation to the Chair, may I congratulate you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on being there? Having spent a long night on the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill with you in the Chair, I am sure that you will carry out your new task with considerable distinction.
I am not sure whether I welcome the fact that, with so many important matters before it, the House tonight has nothing on which to vote or on which to make decisions, but I welcome the opportunity to raise an important issue in Scotland concerning colleges of education. There may be no obvious connection between the debate on the Third world and this debate, which some of our English colleagues may consider parochial, but there is a connection between the educational assistance that we can give the Third world and our education system throughout the United Kingdom. The more that we run it down, the less able we shall be to provide the services for education, health and so that the Third world desperately needs.
The debate must be placed within the general context of education in Scotland and the Government's expenditure cuts across the board. We are facing a cut of £65 million in an education budget that has already been severely cut. Either 6,000 teachers will be threatened with redundancy, or 6,000 who may like to have taken up teaching posts will no longer be able to do so. Our universities will not be able to provide certain courses. Staff will be declared redundant. We are at risk of losing one university altogether—Stirling. It is linked to one of the colleges that the Government are proposing to close—Callendar Park college of education. The closure will have a disastrous effect on the economy and education programme in the Central region of Scotland.
In August last year, the Government proposed that Hamilton and Callendar Park colleges of education should be closed. They also proposed that Craiglockhart should be merged with another college. I am pleased to see that the Under-Secretary of State is to reply. The college is situated in his constituency of Edinburgh, Pentlands. When the proposal was made, the college with which it was to be merged was not identified. Craiglockhart trains Roman Catholic teachers. The Government undertook that it should continue to do so.
Opposition to the proposals has continued since that time. It is on three major grounds—the way in which the process was undertaken and has since been handled, the

educational deprivation that will result and the fact that the Government wrongly claim that financial savings will result.
In 1976, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Milian) was Secretary of State, the Labour Government suggested in a consultative document—and I emphasise the word "consultative"—that two colleges should be closed and a further two merged. Opposition came from Labour and Conservative Members. They asked for a debate in the Scottish Grand Committee and spoke in an Adjournment debate on the subject. They organised meetings outside the House. At that time I happened to be chairman of the Association of Lecturers in Colleges of Education in Scotland. and the association was one of the leaders in mounting the campaign. I attended the Scottish conference of the Conservative Party where a fringe meeting was organised. I chaired a meeting at the conference and flanking me on the platform were the present hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), who then represented my constituency, and the Under-Secretaries of State for Scotlan—the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind)—and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher}—

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): The hon. Gentleman should refresh his memory. I assure him that I have never had the pleasure of being present at a meeting chaired by him.

Mr. Maxton: If the hon. Gentleman was not present, I shall withdraw his name, but certainly the other hon. Members were present, as were the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment—the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro)—and one of the Lord Commissioners of the Treasury, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton). They were all there on the platform speaking with me against the proposals put forward in a consultative document.
On another occasion I stood on the picket line outside New St. Andrew's House to lobby my right hon. Friend the Member for Craigton about these proposals. Standing on that picket line beside me was the present Secretary of State for Scotland. Time after time we had speeches from Tory Members and we heard all about their objections. Nothing has changed. I could make my whole speech using quotations from speeches made at that time by the right hon. and hon. Members to whom I have referred. I shall use only one quotation:
I am not arguing that for the time being we have to cut down the number of teachers—I know we have. Cut down the number of the new teachers in training. We accept for the time being that has to be done, but the argument is about how do you go about it. The scheme that looks best on paper because it is tidy and neat is not always the best one in practice. It takes a long time to build up the reputation of a college—it can be destroyed easily. Again, where those colleges are doing a very good job, let us keep them in being. I think sometimes it is better not to merge or destroy colleges, but to say 'All right, we will keep them all going, because the more widely they are distributed, the more chance people who live near them have to go and train in them and still live at home.' So it makes better human sense the way we are going about it than I believe the Government scheme does.
That is not very clearly expressed, it is a little woolly, but the person expressing those sentiments is the present Prime Minister when speaking against the previous Government's proposals for colleges of education in a party political broadcast in Scotland on behalf of the Conservative Party on 4 May 1977. What she said then was absolutely right. If we close down educational


establishments that are doing a good job we cannot expect them to take off again later. If she was right then, and if the Secretary of State for Scotland and all the other Conservative Members who spoke so vociferously with me in support of the 10-college system in Scotland were right then, what has changed so dramatically? I cannot see that anything has changed dramatically.
We still have declining primary school rolls. That was known in 1977 when Conservative Members welcomed the decision made by my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Scotland not to close the colleges. They said then that my right hon. Friend was right. It was agreed that school rolls were falling and forecasts could be made through to the end of the decade in terms of secondary schools. That sort of judgment could be made in 1977.
If there has been a change in the demographic arguments, it is to the reverse effect. In 1977, although the Government were predicting that there would be a rise in the birth rate in Scotland, that had not started to happen. By 1980–81 it had started to happen. In Scotland there is an increasing child population at the infant stage. So the demographic argument which my right hon. Friend accepted when he was in office and when he kept the colleges open has, if anything, more weight now.
The need which my right hon. Friend identified and accepted for 10 colleges, was accepted by the then Opposition. The arguments have not changed since then, so why are the Government making these proposals? I know of no convincing argument why they should. Those 10 colleges are desperately needed in the educational system. Everyone will accept that if there are fewer children in the schools, fewer teachers are needed, but it is not necessarily true that a strict ratio reduction in the number of teachers is required. We should take this opportunity to improve the quality of education by reducing the pupil-teacher ratios in our schools. That is a perfectly reasonable aim. The Government may say that they do not want to spend any more money, but by spending the same amount of money they could get vast improvements. We should use this opportunity not to train more teachers than we require but to train a few more so that we can improve the quality of education across the whole country, particularly in areas of urban deprivation where the educational needs are so great.
If we have reducing school rolls we cannot cut the number of teachers in a strict ratio. For example, if there are 20 children who wish to take 0-level maths in one class and, over three or four years, that number falls to 15, it does not follow that one maths teacher can be dismissed. That makes no sense. It takes more teachers than the Government are prepared to concede to take care of the reduction in school rolls. We need 10 colleges just to make sure that we have enough teachers to improve and maintain the education service during a period of falling school rolls.
The Government are saying that the function of colleges of education is to provide a pre-training service for teachers. But colleges of education are concerned with other matters as well. They are concerned with providing in-service courses for existing teachers. Most people would accept that at a time of rapidly changing technology and a changing society generally the need for teachers to maintain their levels of knowledge, to change their areas

of knowledge, to be able to adapt to a changing society is imperative if we are to maintain an education service. That requires colleges of education to provide the in-service training that is necessary. This is only possible on an area and regional basis with the existing colleges. It cannot be done as easily and it certainly cannot be done as cheaply if we start to close down certain colleges. So we need the colleges of education to maintain in-service training just to keep the teachers aware of what is going on.
In Scotland we have had some five or six major educational reports over the past five or six years. We have had the Munn and Dunning report, dealing with the curricula in secondary schools in the third and fourth years and the examination system in Scotland, and proposing radical changes in the way in which assessments of our schoolchildren should be made. We have had the Pack report, which dealt with the question of truancy and indiscipline in Scottish schools and suggested various means by which the system could be improved. We have had the Warnock report, which covered the whole of the United Kingdom but which had to be taken into account in Scotland, dealing with the needs of children who have educational problems or who are educationally subnormal. Every one of those reports, and others, has suggested that there is a need for in-service training of teachers at present in service if the reports are to be properly implemented. In other words, they say that teachers need training in order to implement those reports.
But what are the Government proposing to do? In two major population areas of Scotland, in terms of Callendar Park in the Central region, and Hamilton college in Lanarkshire, they are proposing to close down the two colleges that could provide that sort of in-service training. I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) present. I hope that he will make a speech on the effects of this on his constituency and on the general area of Lanarkshire. I should like to make a few remarks as well.
The fact is that over the past 15 years Callendar Park—to take the Central region first—has built up a reputation for providing primary school teachers and doing in-service work in that area. It is worth pointing out that the Central region, unlike other parts of Scotland, is not one of declining population; the population is increasing because of the petrochemical complexes in that area. If Callendar Park closes, teachers who wish to do in-service work and students who wish to go to a college of education to train as teachers will have to travel very considerable distances. That is, of course, if they are doing direct in-service work in the colleges. They will have to travel either to Glasgow or to Edinburgh to do that. There will be problems in terms of both expense, either to themselves or to the local authority, and of time. Teachers might go to Callendar Park, four or five miles down the road, if they can go at 4 o'clock or half-past 4 and, since it only takes five or 10 minutes, be home by 6 o'clock. But if they have to travel 20, 30 or 40 miles to do it they are less likely to go. The result will be that the general level of in-service training will drop.
My second point concerns the development of what is called school-based in-service training—which was part of my right hon. Friend's proposals. In other words, lecturers go out to the schools and help teachers to develop their courses. If Hamilton college and Callendar Park are closed, those lecturers will have to travel greater distances and the result will be either greater cost or a considerably


poorer service than those two areas, Lanarkshire and the Central region, have grown to expect over the past few years.
There is, therefore, an expense factor in this, and there will be enormous educational deprivation in areas which already lack the educational services which other parts of the country have. This is particularly true in the Lanarkshire area, which was for a long time one of the most educationally deprived areas in Scotland. Yet now it is to lose the college that has helped to bring that educational service up to an acceptable level. It has provided more teachers, not just in the primary school area, but in terms of mathematics and physics. It will lose that, and the result could be a decline in educational standards in an area of very high population.
I think that I have probably said enough. I see that there are some of my hon. Friends present who will also wish to say something. What I would like to say is that the Government have mishandled this matter from the very beginning. They did not issue a consultative document and they never have, despite promises to do so. They said there would be consultation on the question of the means and the timing, yet the Minister in charge of education in Scotland told us, though not very clearly, in the Scottish Grand Committee that the colleges were to close at the end of June. There was no consultation at all about timing. More clearly, he told students from Hamilton college of education at an informal meeting that the college would be closing in June and that they should forget about all their protests because he was going to close it anyway. So where was the consultation about the closure? The Government mishandled this. They said that they would give us costings. They did so, after four months of pressure. The costings were examined by the Scottish Select Committee. I do not wish to give any facts before the report of the Select Committee, but I think that the evidence produced was inadequate—in fact, the Government did not produce any evidence for Callendar Park; that had to come later. They made various errors in their costings, which Hamilton college has proved to be wrong. Some statistics were so incorrect that it is surprising they were given in the first place. The Government have been defeated on every educational and social argument about these closures.
I therefore hope that, even at this late stage, the Minister who will reply tonight, even though he is not the Minister in charge of education in Scotland, will tell the House and the people of Scotland—who feel very strongly about this issue—that at long last the Government have changed their minds and will not proceed with the closure of these two colleges.

Mr. George Robertson: This debate is a bonus, I suppose, inasmuch as that at last we are having a debate on the Floor of the House on the Government's intention to close two colleges of education in Scotland and to merge another with some unknown institution. I should like to say at once that this is not a substitute for the sort of debate that the Government should have accorded to this important subject.
This is not the first debate on the subject that has taken place in the House, although it is the first in this Chamber, because in December of last year this matter was debated in the Scottish Grand Committee on a motion tabled by the

Opposition, and not by the Government, to debate in Opposition time a matter that is crucial to large numbers of people throughout Scotland.
The culmination of the debate in the Scottish Grand Committee was not a triumph for the Government, with their paper majority in the House covering the discrepancy in numbers in Scottish constituencies. We saw on that occasion the humiliation of the Government, with every Government Back Bencher and Front Bencher failing to vote for the Government's tawdry policy. it was a mute, silent group that was defeated by 40 votes to nil in the Scottish Grand Committee, it having debated an issue crucial to the Scottish people.
We should debate the colleges of education, not on the initiative of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton), but in Government time, on a Government motion. The rules of the House provide that at the end of this debate we shall not be able to have a vote. We need to know how many supporters the Government have on this issue. It would be easy to quote speech after speech by Conservative Members in 1977 against almost precisely the same proposals that are now being made by the Government. That would prove nothing other than the double standards practised by Conservative supporters. The Government were humiliatingly defeated in the Scottish Grand Committee and they were obliged morally, if not by the rules of order, to introduce a motion to be debated on the Floor of the House to enable us to flush out the Government's supporters.
The Government have precious few supporters in Scotland. Until this evening only the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacKay) had come out pubicly in support of the Government's policies. the Conservative parties in East Kilbride and Hamilton have expressed their disagreement with the Government's policy towards the Hamilton college of education. Conservative councillors in the districts surrounding the college and Conservative councillors in the Strathclyde regional council have all expressed their disagreement with the Government on this issue.
I am led to believe that even this week Conservative trade unionists in Lanarkshire have asked the Government to reconsider their view on the fate of the college. Throughout the community councillors, Churches, youth organisations and community organisations have been unanimous in their condemnation of the Government's proposals. They are calling upon the Government to change their mind.
The Government have no friends. Conservative Members do not keep counsel even with themselves. That is perhaps why they remained silent in December when there was a Division in the Scottish Grand Committee. Friendless and isolated Ministers continue with a policy that seems destined to cause education damage even at the expense of increased public expenditure, which it seems will be the net result of the exercise.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East (Mr. Stewart) has entered the Chamber. He has been courageous in taking a critical stand on the Government's policy. Such courage should be the subject of congratulation, especially during this week. The hon. Gentleman and I have argued passionately, yet moderately, in the cause of Hamilton college of education. Until this evening I have managed, despite the anger that is felt throughout my constituency, to retain that degree of moderation in the faint and almost vain hope that the


Government will begin to accept the sense of the arguments that have been advanced by Conservative Back Benchers, by their own supporters throughout the country and by every organisation that has submitted evidence.
There are times when such a bipartisan and moderate approach is no longer relevant. At such times we have to bell the Government's cat and tell the people of Scotland precisely what damage the Government are causing. The Government seem blind to the state of public opinion in Central Scotland. The effect of the closure of Hamilton college of education will be considerable. Many of the views expressed by Conservative Members in 1977 when they were in Opposition apply equally today.
The education service in Lanarkshire suffers from considerable deprivation. I accept that the concept of deprivation is one that is not easily grasped by everyone. Sometimes "deprivation" is used by sociologists and social scientists to describe a host of conditions, many of which do not apply in Lanarkshire. I do not consider Lanarkshire to be a slum area, an area that is down at heel, or an area without prospects. However, if we consider the education prospects of the children of Lanarkshire, it is clear that classical features of deprivation exist.
Lanarkshire has the worst pupil-teacher ratio in Scotland, and the worst staffing ratios of any of the regions in Scotland and of most parts of the United Kingdom. Some of the major schools in Lanarkshire—some of them with considerable education qualities—still have not achieved the minimum Red Book standards laid down by the Scottish Education Department.
There are still problems in science, mathematics and technical subjects. I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State agrees that such subjects are crucial to Britain's economic recovery, especially in areas of high unemployment such as Lanarkshire. There are still critical and chronic shortages of teachers in those subjects. The lesson of the past 20 years is that only when Hamilton college of education appeared on the scene, and teachers were trained locally and stayed locally, was anything done to improve the chronic teacher shortage. The years of improvement since 1966 are apparently to be swept away in some dogmatic move by the Government to rid the countryside of a number of education establishments.
I should have argued that the closure is being carried out in the dogmatic pursuit of the Government's monetarist policies, had it not been proved conclusively by the lecturers of Hamilton college of education that it will cost the Exchequer at lot of money to close the college. It is a perversion of the Government's economic policies that the college is to be sacrificed to meet the ambitions of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland who has responsibilities for education and industry. The hon. Gentleman seems to think that if he reduces the number of education opportunities and education institutions he will adhere to the Government's overall objective of reducing public sector expenditure.
In Lanarkshire the effect of the closure will be considerable, and all the years of improvement will be swept away by the elimination of a valuable and vital education resource that has made a major contribution to increasing education standards in the area. When the college was established, local people went to it to be trained. For the first time a significant number stayed in the area after being trained. The Minister has produced no

evidence to suggest that once the role of the college is taken over by a college of education in the West End of Glasgow, which is about 10 or 12 miles from Hamilton, Lanarkshire will have the supply of teachers that it so desperately needs.
The Government have not remained totally intransigent on Hamilton college of education during the debate since August. I am not so churlish as to say that the Minister has stood steadfast against all the arguments advanced against the Government's policy, but with each concession that the Minister or the Secretary of State has made to the argument put forward by the Lanarkshire people the argument for the abolition of the college has grown weaker. We now have a catalogue of agreement by the Minister that a considerable number of the functions of Hamilton college of education are to remain in the province of educational establishment in the area.
One of the remarkable things about today's debate, taking place in the March following the unilateral decision last August, is that in that time the Government have established the fact that so many of the functions of the college will continue to be carried out by a college of education in the area. In the name of public savings the Government will sweep away an institution that has done good, and in its place will remain all of the functions that Hamilton college carries out today, but without that vital local link which was so essential in the past, and which has made a contribution to improving Lanarkshire's teaching standards.
On a rare occasion of some note the Secretary of State for Scotland himself answered a question on 18 January from that sole supporter of the Government, the hon. Member for Argyll. Perhaps the hon. Member for Argyll was being rewarded for his unique loyalty to the Government's policy by that answer from the Secretary of State for Scotland. In his incredible answer the right hon. Gentleman outlined to the hon. Member for Argyll—who required reminding—the commitments that had been given to maintain the in-service training capabilities of Hamilton college.
The right hon. Gentleman said that at both Callendar Park and Hamilton colleges there would continue to be outstations of the parent college—whatever the parent college might be after the Government's closure decision had been carried out. Accommodation for the outstations could, and, the answer implied, would, be in the existing buildings of the colleges and—the eternal Catch 22 situation—that the details would have to be worked out and consultation would take place to enable the colleges to decide what form of execution was best suited to the circumstances.
The Minister has given a commitment to retain the technical education features of the work of Hamilton college. There is a commitment to maintain in-service training, which already accounts for a sizeable proportion of the work. At the same time, despite the commitment that will be carried out by another college 12 miles on the other side of Glasgow, the Government intend to abolish the institution that made all the demands necessary, and which was itself capable of delivering them to the area of Lanarkshire served by the college.
It makes no sense, politically, economically or educationally, to axe Hamilton college of education and, at the same time, move the bulk of its work to a college on the other side of Glasgow, with all the added cost


involved, as well as the psychlogical disadvantages to the recruitment of teachers from Lanarkshire and for Lanarkshire.
I remain confused about why the Government are so recklessly pursuing a policy that does not stand up to examination. The policy has received no support from the education experts that the Government are obliged, and often willing, to consult, and whose advice they usually seek in cases where educational problems are to be dealt with. The General Teaching Council for Scotland, which is statutorily charged with the responsibility of advising the Secretary of State on education matters, has made its view clear on the vital nature of the role of Hamilton College in the future of Lanarkshire's education, yet the Government have chosen to ignore that advice.
The Government do not seem to have any friends or supporters or back-up for the view that they have taken. Why are we still being told at this late stage that there is no alternative to closing this college, which is demonstrably needed by the people of an area of such clear and measured educational deprivation? The Under-Secretary told us the last time that we debated this subject that the Government have supporters, but they are all silent. All those who keep sitting on their hands are supporters of the Government. Some of those who keep their hands above the table support the Government in this exercise of educational vandalism. That is the sort of thesis that is difficult to prove. Anyone who believes that has not benefited from the Scottish education system. If during the coming months the Government can find any authority or organisation, or any person of standing, that supports the view that they are correct and should be supported, the case that we have put forward will be weakened. To date they have not found such support. No one has said that he is in favour of the Government's decision.
Two weeks ago the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs considered the economic consequences of the closure of Hamilton college of education and Callendar Park. The Committee did so following a letter that I wrote pointing out the enormous discrepancies between the figures supplied by the Minister responsible for education and industry and the figures worked out in detail by Hamilton college lecturing staff. It is not proper for us to debate the deliberations of the Select Committee. As I am not a member of the Select Committee I do not wish to encroach on them, but the evidence was public before the Select Committee considered the issue. To any objective outsider there was no doubt that the Minister's inadequate and delayed documentation did not stand up to scrutiny. The figures that he produced contained nothing like the detail of those worked out by the lecturing staff of Hamilton college.
The Minister's view has been made clear since the deliberations of the Committee. The Minister with responsibility for education said that it was immaterial whether the college's figures were correct. It did not matter whether it would cost money now to close the college, or whether it would cost money for ever to close the college. What mattered, apparently, in the Government's judgment were the crude figures of the numbers of teachers required. That was the dominant aspect that would determine the Government's view on the need for additional colleges of education.
I shall not make a meal, as I could, of the contradictions between the present approach and the approach by the Secretary of State for Scotland in the defence of Craigie

college in 1977. The record stands quite clear. The Secretary of State for Scotland's speech in 1977 is on the record. The speech of the Secretary of State for Scotland in the Scottish Grand Committee in December last year is also on the record. The contradictions are there for history to judge precisely on which side of the fence he has come down and which viewpoint should be accepted as his real opinion, as distinct from the opinion which at the time it was convenient for him to put forward.
It is a perversion of basic economics to say that it is legitimate to close colleges irrespective of their cost or their educational impact on an area, simply to satisfy crude estimates—which so often in the past have proved to be inaccurate—of the number of teachers who will be required in any specific subject. That is all the more so when the bulk of the work done by Hamilton college of education relates to post-teacher and in-service training, which will be crucial, irrespective of the number of pupils in schools today.
Economics of the sort that seem to be paraded by the Scottish Office team is almost like an economics and education policy "Muppet Show", with the Minister playing Miss Piggy to the Secretary of State's Kermit the Frog. That would be a joke if the consequences for the children of Lanarkshire were not so dire. I seriously wonder whether Ministers have considered the impact of their policies on the people who at the end of the day represent the crucial aspect of an education system.
Education systems were not established in order to employ lecturers, teachers or school janitors. Education exists for our children and for future generations of children. It is they who will suffer as a direct result of the Government's policy to close down the Scottish colleges of education without properly taking into account the effect that that will have on the Scottish education system or the way in which children will be educated in future.
The Government seem hell-bent on closing down the college of education in my constituency irrespective of the cost to the Exchequer, irrespective of the cost to the children of Lanarkshire in education terms and irrespective of the cost to the community as a whole. There is still time for the Government to change their mind. There is still time for Ministers to look at the facts, to listen to opinions and to listen to the voices of their own supporters. Even at this late stage they should recognise that those facts and views are against them. There is still time for the Government to make a U-turn, which would be welcomed throughout Lanarkshire as well as by a large section of the Scottish population.
We have a different Minister at the Dispatch Box this evening—one who previously rejoiced in his liberal reputation. He defended a college in 1977. I therefore hope that we shall at last have a fresh mind on the subject, so that for the first time we can see the possibility of a change in policy. I hope that it will be a policy that can receive the general acclaimation of the Scottish people, otherwise the Government will face near certain condemnation if they continue with the policy with which they have stuck up to now.

Mr. Bruce Milan: I intervene only briefly. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) on initiating this


debate and on his speech. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) on his speech.
I do not intend to go over more than a small part of the ground because I do not wish the Government to say, on a future occasion, that this debate, unsatisfactory as it is bound to be, is sufficient to deal adequately with the problem of the closure of the colleges and that they must therefore maintain the view that they will not provide time for the matter to be properly discussed.
The matter has been raised at short notice. The Minister responsible for Scottish education is not present. He has been engaged in other matters. Another Minister is to answer the debate. I do not complain about that. He has simply been given the job, and he could not do it any worse than his hon. Friend has done it Upstairs and in other places. As he is not the Minister responsible for Scottich education we do not expect him to know all the details.
This has not been a real debate, because there have been no contributions from the Conservative Benches. That is slightly surprising, because the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) has been present during the whole of the debate. He has not opened his mouth, even though we know that on an earlier occasion he expressed great concern about what the Government were doing and did not feel that they had put up an adequate case for their closure proposals. In particular, he was worried about the financial consequences.
There has been some development in that regard since the Scottish Grand Committee debate, which was a complete fiasco, in that the Government did not vote for their proposals. The Minister has attempted to produce a number of costings to demonstrate that the closure of colleges would save money. Without going into detail, I may say that I found most of the figures that he produced completely unconvincing.
Of course, the lecturers and others in the colleges concerned have produced their own costings, which demonstrate that far from achieving savings the closure of colleges would cost the Government additional money. The way in which the Government have handled this matter and the various compromises they have reached about keeping the locations going, and so on, suggest that the lecturers may well have the right answer and that any savings are likely to be minimal. In fact, they may be completely non-existent. Among other things, we may be faced with additional expenditure.
I hope that the Select Committee will produce a report on that matter. However, I mention the costings for one reason alone, which is the extraordinary statements that have been made by the Minister who is in charge of Scottish education. He has implied that costings do not matter, and that even if they prove that it would cost more money, the Government are determined to go ahead with the closures.
In the first instance, one of the few plausible arguments for the closures was the need to save Government money because of the rundown in the number of pupils and, therefore, the need for fewer teachers than we have had in the past. Now the Government's view is that it does not really matter. They do not care what anybody says. They do not care whether it will cost more money. They do not care about the disorganisation. They do not care about Scottish public opinion. They will close the colleges

anyway, regardless of what anybody says or does. I cannot imagine a more discredited way of handling this situation. It should be added to the discredited way in which the Government handled the original "non-consultations", the lack of a consultation document, the way in which they did not announce the closure proposals to the House of Commons, and the way in which they dealt with the debate in the Scottish Grand Committee.
There is now utter confusion about what will happen over the next few months, even if the Government continue with their proposals. For example, Craiglockhart is in the Minister's constituency. The original proposition was that everything was to be moved from Craiglockhart and the college was to be merged with one of the east coast colleges. That was taken to be Moray House. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that, because it has been impossible to get firm information.
The latest situation seems to be that Craiglockhart will stay where it is—in other words, it will not be moved from its present location—and the East of Scotland college with which it was to be merged turns out to be Notre Dame, which is in the West of Scotland. We are completely in the dark about the basis on which such a merger is to take place, who is to do what and where, what the board of governor will be, what the arrangements for courses will be, and all the rest.
If the Minister thinks that all the staff at Notre Dame are happy about the prospect of a merger he could not be more wrong. Within the last few days I received a letter complaining about the complete lack of information to staff. It also complained about certain arrangements which, in the view of many staff members at Notre Dame, would not be in the interests either of Notre Dame or Craiglockhart. More important, those arrangements did not seem to be in the interests of Roman Catholic education in Scotland or the supply of an adequate number of teachers to deal with Roman Catholic education in Scotland.
The point is that what started out as one proposition has gone rapidly through various stages to become an entirely different proposition. At the end of the day, if there is to be a presence at Craiglockhart and some kind of arrangement with Notre Dame, it is difficult to see why the existing arrangement should be disturbed at all. It would be far simpler and more satisfactory if Craiglockhart simply stayed as it was.
Exactly the same arguments apply to Hamilton and Callendar Park. My hon. Friends have spoken particularly about Hamilton and have shown that as the argument has gone on the Government have conceded that more and more is to continue to be located in Hamilton in the way of in-service training, the staff to deal with it, and a whole variety of other things. Nevertheless, there is to be some kind of merger. Indeed, it is not even a merger. The college is to be closed, but in the case of Hamilton there are to be some arrangements that are to take place with Jordanhill.
Again, there is utter confusion on this, just as there is with Callendar Park. We do not know the dates for the closures, or how they are to be carried out—if, indeed, they are carried out. We do not know what is to happen to the staff. In each case the college governors have refused to co-operate with the Government's proposals, while the Government have been tying themselves in knots


with different versions of so-called concessions to try to prove that even if the colleges are closed they will carry on doing the same work as they are doing at present.
The whole situation has become farcical. It has happened because the Government made certain decisions without consultation and, indeed, in breach of specific promises to consult the interests concerned. The proposals have been greeted with utter hostility by the whole of educational opinion in Scotland. The Government have not put up a credible case for the proposals. The proposals were defeated in the Scottish Grand Committee. From the day that they announced the proposals until now the Government have not succeeded in persuading one person in Scotland who was hostile to the proposals that they have done anything more than make a complete mess of something that could well have been left alone, with the reduction in numbers that everyone agrees must inevitably take place as a result of the reduction in the school population spread over the whole of the 10-college system.
The matter had been decided three years previously, after considerable public discussion, consultation and debate, but the Government were determined not to leave well alone. Despite what happened on earlier occasions and despite the protestations and speeches made by the Secretary of State himself and by most of his hon. Friends on those earlier occasions, the Government made the announcement. They have been in confusion ever since. This has done the Government's standing and their reputation for honesty and integrity no good, and it has done Scottish education no good. It has caused a great deal of unnecessary worry and loss of morale when there is already a tremendous loss of morale in Scottish education.
The situation is not helped, incidentally, by the appalling figures published in the public expenditure White Paper last week about the reductions proposed by the Government in the numbers of teachers in the schools over the next few years. To all those difficulties and problems, the Government added a completely unnecessary irritation and annoyance to the whole education sector in Scotland. They have not yet extricated themselves from their self-inflicted difficulties, and they have done tremendous damage to Scottish education.
Even at this late stage I hope that the hon. Gentleman will convey to his right hon. Friend that the most satisfactory solution to the whole problem and the most satisfactory way in which the Government can extricate themselves from the imbroglio in which they have involved themselves is to withdraw the proposals. They should allow the 10-college system to continue at the reduced level that everyone agrees must happen over the next few years because of the reduction of population, and allow the colleges to get back to the job that they ought to be doing with some vestige of morale, namely, training teachers to teach our children adequately in our schools. So far, the Government have merely caused immense damage. The damage is not completely irreversible if they will now adopt the common-sense solution, which is to withdraw the proposals and allow the 10-college system to continue.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) on using this opportunity to debate this subject. He began his contribution by referring to the reductions in expenditure

on education in Scotland and implied that they were having a disastrous effect on the Scottish educational framework. If the hon. Gentleman wished to make a balanced contribution to the debate he might have pointed out that, notwithstanding the reduction in resources, as a result of the reduction in pupil numbers, the pupil-teacher ratio in Scotland has not merely been maintained but is better than it has ever been, and that will continue during the year to come.

Mr. Millan: What the hon. Gentleman said is untrue. The public expenditure White Paper published last week shows a substantial deterioration in the pupil-teacher ratio over the next few years.

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman had better await consideration of the White Paper, but nothing that he said in any way alters the basic fact that at the present time and in the year to come the resources made available to the education service will maintain and indeed improve the pupil-teacher ratio in Scotland. It is right that that should be pointed out.

Mr. Maxton: rose—

Mr. Rifkind: No, I shall not give way. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) referred to the debate which took place in the Scottish Grand Committee. He made considerable play of the fact that the Scottish Conservative Party is a minority party. After his recent experience at the Scottish Labour Party conference in Perth, at which he turned out to be a small minority in the Scottish Labour Party, and where his point of view was not shared by his colleagues, I should have thought that he would be the last person to make a play of the position of minorities.
The important point, as the hon. Gentleman is perfectly well aware, is that the decision in the Scottish Grand Committee was not a vote on the merits of the Government's policy. The Opposition are perfectly well aware that the Scottish Grand Committee does not vote on the merits of policies. The vote that the Opposition chose to promote was on the technical question,
That the Chairman do now report to the House that the Committtee have considered the matter of the colleges of education in Scotland.
Merely because the Opposition sought to use a technical procedure in order to express their view that does not mean that Government supporters are obliged to continue in the same way. [Interruption.] Perhaps the right hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. MacKenzie) will allow me to finish this point. He should not deplore the fact that the Government have not provided time for a debate on this subject on the Floor of the House. It is within the Opposition's power to have a debate on any subject that they wish and to vote on it. If they have not done so, it would seem that the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues do not give the matter the priority that he would wish it to have.

Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: First, as these are the Government's proposals, some of us might just think it right and proper for the Government to bring them to the House so that we may discuss them adequately. On the matter of voting in the Scottish Grand Committee, for the benefit of those who are, perhaps, less interested, in procedural tactics, will he tell us why, some years ago, even the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr.


Amery) and people of that kind were brought to the Scottish Grand Committee? Was that just a little technical exercise, or did it really mean something when all those people were brought in from all over the place to vote against us on that occasion?

Mr. Rifkind: My right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) is the best person to explain why he attended the Committee on that occasion. The Government of the day—of which the right hon. Member for Rutherglen was a distinguished member—emphasised at the time that any vote in the Scottish Grand Committee was of a merely technical nature. They were quite right to emphasise that, and it is rather strange that today Labour Members seem to give such a vote a much greater importance.
The right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) raised the subject of Craiglockhart college, a college in my own constituency, and he made various comments about the question of a merger between Craiglockhart college and another college. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the statement originally made on the question of Craiglockhart said only that the Government believed that it was appropriate to have a merger of Craiglockhart college with another college, while retaining a Catholic teacher training presence in the East of Scotland. When I hear the right hon. Gentleman maintaining his total hostility to the Government's proposals, I cannot but remember his own remark during the debate in the Scottish Grand Committee in 1977, when he said:
it is utterly absurd"—
not just absurd but utterly absurd—
to pretend that the entire supply of Roman Catholic teachers in the East of Scotland depends on the continuation of Craiglockhart as a separate college."—[Official Report, Scottish Grand Committee; 15 February 1977, c. 58.]
If that was the right hon. Gentleman's view in 1977, I presume that it is still his view in 1980. He did not draw that comment to the attention of the House when he spoke in this debate.

Mr. Millan: Will the Minister say something more about Craiglockhart?

Mr. Rifkind: I understand that there are constructive discussions going on at the moment. It is right and proper that we should not at this stage wish to prejudice the outcome of those discussions. I believe that Craiglockhart college has responded in a very constructive way and has entered into detailed discussions with my right hon. Friend and with the Scottish Education Department. I hope that they will lead to a result that will be acceptable to the college as well as to the Government.

Mr. Millan: With respect, that is telling us nothing. Is Craiglockhart to be maintained at a separate location? Is it to be merged with Notre Dame? This has been going on for about nine months now. There is no point in the Minister's saying that there are discussions going on. What is happening? He ought to know as he is the constituency Member. Why does he not tell us?

Mr. Rifkind: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that when in the past he had ministerial responsibility and was engaged in what are inevitably delicate and sensitive

discussions, he did not usually announce to the House the details of those discussions and negotiations while they were continuing.
The Government's original statement remains entirely valid, namely, that what they are proposing and intend to see established is the merger of Craiglockhart college with another college, while retaining a Catholic teacher training presence in the East of Scotland. That was the Government's statement at the beginning of these matters and nothing that has happened has changed that position.

Mr. Maxton: If there is to be a merger with Notre Dame and there is to be a Roman Catholic presence maintained in the East of Scotland—which means, presumably, the present Craiglockhart college—the only saving that will be made in that process is that one governing board will disappear, and a few pence each month will be saved by not having to buy tea and buns for the governors of the college of education in Craiglockhart.

Mr. Rifkind: I advise the hon. Member for Cathcart to await the outcome of the negotiations. Obviously, when they have been concluded my right hon. Friend will, of course, ensure that all the details of what is proposed are made known. That might be a more appropriate time for the hon. Gentleman to give us the benefit of his comments.
The whole basis of the argument that was put forward by the hon. Member for Cathcart and by the right hon. Member for Craigton was, in essence, that nothing has changed since 1977. If, therefore, it was then considered inappropriate to change the system and structure of colleges of education what has changed since in order to make it acceptable today? That is a perfectly fair question and there is a perfectly satisfactory answer to it. It has been given in the past but I must use this opportunity to emphasise it.
At the time in 1977 when the right hon. Member for Craigton proposed closures of colleges of education there was capacity in Scotland for 14,450 places. The previous Labour Government—in which the right hon. Gentleman was the Secretary of State for Scotland—issued a consultative paper in which they said that the appropriate capacity for the colleges of education in Scotland would be a figure of approximately 11,900. That was the figure which they believed could maintain the viability of the existing college structure in Scotland—a total student intake of 11,900.
The right hon. Gentleman and the hon Member for Cathcart know perfectly well that at the present time the college student population in Scotland is approximately 7,300. The figure has fallen dramatically, even over the last three to four years, since these matters were considered by the previous Labour Government. Therefore, even compared with the figure proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, we have now some 4,000 places surplus to requirement. The basis on which the right hon. Gentleman put forward a consultative document on the colleges and their appropriate capacity is no longer relevant, given the substantial decline as the result of the fall in student numbers.

Mr. Millan: I do not want to go into details. I simply say to the Minister that what he is saying is nonsense, and it is not believed by one person involved in education in Scotland. There is nothing that has happened over the last few years with regard to pupil numbers in the schools that is any different; in fact, the position is almost exactly what


we said it would be in the original consultative paper in 1977. Of course, there has been a very considerable falling off, but it is all in line with the projection that we made at that time. Nothing has changed in that respect. Nothing that the Minister has said about numbers is any different from what was said in the original consultative paper in 1977. All that has changed is that the Government have decided, for purposes which are still completely obscure, to close a number of colleges. The birth rate is actually going up at the present time.

Mr. Rifkind: The right hon. Gentleman's intervention has added nothing to the debate, I regret to say, because he has not been able to dispute the fact—it is an obvious fact, not capable of disputation—that the student population in the colleges at present is 4,000 less than the level that the right hon. Gentleman said would be appropriate for the existing structure of colleges in Scotland. [Interruption.] I accept that hon. Members will not themselves feel able to agree with that fact.

Mr. Millan: It is not a fact.

Mr. Rifkind: The fact remains that there is substantial surplus capacity in the colleges at present.

Mr. Millan: The Minister is confusing overall capacity with the numbers of students in the college at any particular time. I simply repeat that the figures as they have emerged over the last few years are exactly as projected in the papers that we produced at the time. There has been no change and there has been no dispute about that. The Minister cannot get out of the present position by confusing the numbers at any particular time with the overall capacity of the colleges. That is a long-term matter; it is not a matter of dealing with the student population in any particular year. It was always recognised that the figures would go down well beyond even the reduced capacity, but they will, of course, go up again in future years. What the Government are now doing is to remove capacity altogether.

Mr. Rifkind: The right hon. Gentleman makes regular interventions in these matters, but he still cannot divorce us from the simple fact that there are far more places in the existing college structure than there are students. The Government have to take cognisance of that. Indeed, I remind the right hon. Gentleman of what he said in 1977:
if we do not contract the system to deal with the new situation in terms of pupil population and the rest, we shall be doing considerable damage to the students and to the teachers themselves" —[Official Report, Scottish Grand Committee; 15 February 1977, c. 8.]
That is the position that the Government face at the moment. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has not said that questions of cost are irrelevant, as the hon. Member for Hamilton indicated. What he has said is that the primary consideration is that the teacher training college structure should be related to the number of students and the need for teachers to be trained. That is the primary consideration.
Although questions of cost are relevant and are quite properly matters for debate, to suggest that somehow it has been indicated by my hon. Friend that he is not remotely interested in questions of cost, or whether it would be a gain or a loss in terms of the Government's financial position, is to put the facts quite beyond recognition.

Mr. George Robertson: First, when did the Under-Secretary say that? Secondly, can the Minister contradict

what I heard as an observer in the Scottish Grand Committee when the Minister was asked whether the outcome of the costings exercise would make any difference? He replied "No". If the Select Committee concludes that the closure of the colleges will result in a financial loss, will the Government change their mind? That would be the only proof of the Minister's remarks.

Mr. Rifkind: At every opportunity my hon. Friend the Minister has made it clear that the Government's prime consideration is that the structure of teacher training in Scotland has a far greater capacity than is required. That is the primary reason why the contraction is appropriate.
I have nothing to add to the remarks made on 13 January about in-service training by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. MacKay).
On the important question of the various differences of detail between the position suggested by the Scottish Education Department and that suggested by Hamilton and—

Mr. Robertson: I should like to ask the Minister a question before he leaves the subject of in-service training. Indeed, the Minister has glossed over that subject with a few words. The Minister certainly gives us brisker speeches and blathers less than do some of his other hon. Friends. However, his response does not do justice to the importance of the in-service component. I pointed out that since the Government had committed themselves to such a large degree of coverage for in-service training there could be little sense in closing down a college that acts not only as a base for in-service training but as its kernel. The in-service training that represents at least 40 per cent. of the college's work will have to be carried out at a considerable distance from Lanarkshire.

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman should express his satisfaction that the Government's response will ensure that the in-service requirements of the area that he represents will be fully met even after Hamilton has ceased to be a separate college. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He has implied that the Government's response to in-service training is so similar to the existing provision in Hamilton college that the college should riot be closed. If the hon. Gentleman believes that my right hon. Friend's reply of 13 January amounts to a satisfactory response to the needs of in-service training, he should welcome it and not condemn it.
A basic point was raised about the differences of detail—some of which are important—in the views of the Scottish Office on financial and other relevant issues and those expressed by Callendar Park college and Hamilton college. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that it would be in the interests of all concerned if the colleges were prepared to enter into formal discussions with the Scottish Office in order to discuss those matters.
Obviously, if there are differences of view on important points of detail, such as the teaching staff and the financial aspects involved, those subjects can best be dealt with by holding meetings with all those concerned. So far, the colleges have not been prepared to enter into such discussions, but I hope that they will consider doing so in the interests of their staff and their pupils. I shall pass on the points raised by the right hon. Member for Craigton


to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who has specific responsibility for such matters.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: I am sorry that I was not here earlier. However, it was not entirely my fault. I am a member of the Committee on the Education (Scotland) (No. 2) Bill and I was detained in the Committee Room upstairs. Despite repeated requests from Labour Members to adjourn the Committee so that we could participate in this most important debate, which concerns Scottish education, Scottish students, teachers and school children, the Minister refused to adjourn the Committee. Indeed, I have given up my dinner to attend this debate.
In a sense, I was not surprised that the UnderSecretary—the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher)—who is supposed to be in charge of Scottish education, should refuse to adjourn the Committee and reply to this debate. He should be thoroughly ashamed of himself. On this issue—as on many other Scottish issues affecting education, industry and unemployment—his record is disgraceful. The Under-Secretary of State—the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind)—has been brought from the substitutes' bench to the Front Bench. He is standing in for his hon. Friend.
The issue at stake is dear to the heart of Scottish education and to the hearts of all who are concerned with preserving and improving it. In addition the credibility of this shabby Government and of those Ministers who have been involved in this decision is at stake.
It is more than a year since I and my hon. Friends the Members for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing) and for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. O'Neill) met the Minister. Indeed, he is now hiding somewhere in the building and is ashamed to show his face in the Chamber. The hon. Gentleman realises that he cannot defend the indefensible. In February 1980 my hon. Friends and I and the representatives of students and staff at Callendar Park college met the Under-Secretary at New St. Andrew's House, in Edinburgh. He gave us a verbal assurance that no college would be closed down and that no decision would be taken on restructuring the college system until a consultative document had been published. That was a firm assurance. Indeed, the hon. Member repeated it in writing in a letter to Mr. Tom Rae, the principal of Callendar Park college. The Under-Secretary wrote:
I repeat the assurance that, at this point in time, we have no proposals before us for the closure of colleges. If, in the light of the information to be examined, we conclude that there is a case for some re-structuring, our findings will be incorporated in a consultative document and we shall consult all concerned before any final decisions are reached.
The letter was signed by the Under-Secretary—the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North. At the time some of my hon. Friends and I thought that the Under-Secretary may have made a slip of the tongue when he gave that cast-iron verbal assurance about the publication of a consultative document. However, it could not have been a slip of the tongue, because the Under-Secretary later repeated the assurance in writing. Indeed, he also signed his name at the bottom of the letter.
It is almost incredible that the Government should stoop so low that Ministers can put their signatures to written documents giving firm promises and send them to Members of Parliament and to important people such as principals of colleges of education and can then, only months later, break those firm promises.
What is at stake is not simply the interests of Scottish education, which obviously must be top priority. What is at stake is the credibility of the Government, and especially the Under-Secretary of State—the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North—who, if he were an honourable person, would have resigned. Whether or not he was forced into it by constraints from the Treasury, how on earth can we ever believe anything that he says, by word of mouth or in writing? Anything that he says in meetings with hon. Members, anywhere, we cannot believe, because he is not a man of his word. He is a man who broke his word. He broke his word to hon. Members. He broke his word to the principal of Callendar Park college—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. It is not parliamentary practice for the hon. Member to impugn the honour of the Minister by saying that he had broken his word.

Mr. Canavan: He told untruths, if that is a parliamentary expression. He certainly put in writing things that amounted to a clear-cut promise—a promise that he did not deliver and a promise that he clearly broke a few months after putting his name at the bottom of that letter. I leave it for hon. Members and people outside to judge whether or not the Minister is a man of integrity. I know what most people in Scotland think about him.
No consultative document was published, for the simple reason that no adequate consultations took place. The Minister claims tht he had to come to a decision quickly and that it was better to come to a decision quickly rather than have long-drawn-out consultations. We are talking about the livelihood of people who have devoted many years to Scottish education. We are talking about the livelihood of the staff in the colleges of education, particularly Hamilton and Callendar Park. We are talking about the livelihood of all the ancillary staff employed in Hamilton and Callendar Park, in particular. We are also talking about future job opportunities for young teachers.
Most important of all, we are talking about the educational opportunities that should be made available and should be improved for this and future generations of Scottish school children. That was part of the reason why the Minister seemed so reluctant—indeed, afraid—to enter into meaningful consultative procedure. He knew that the decision that he wanted to reach—indeed, the decision that may even have been taken at that time—was unjustifiable.
There is no educational justification, no moral justification, no econimic justification and no demographic justification for closing down these colleges. As to the absence of any moral justification, I refer to my previous remarks about the credibility of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and the fact that he has the brass neck to continue as a Minister of the Crown having signed the document that he sent to the principal of Callendar Park. I do not know what confidence anyone outside can now have in a Minister of the Crown who behaves in that manner.
There is no moral justification for going ahead with these closures in view of the commitment given to Mr.


Tom Rae and the principals of the other colleges concerned. There is no educational justification. The Government ask what is the sense in training teachers for unemployment. I do not want to train teachers for unemployment. The Government say that local education authorities in Scotland employ too many teachers. They seem to be bringing pressure to bear on local education authorities to sack about 6,500 teachers. I hope that local education authorities resist that with all their might. I hope that the teaching unions resist it with all their might. It is one of the biggest myths that the Government have produced that there are no jobs for young people coming out of Hamilton, Callendar park, Craiglockhart, or any of the other colleges. There should be jobs.
The Government may boast that the teacher/pupil ratio in Scotland is the best since that statistic was invented. Much of the credit must rest with the Labour Government, who, despite tremendous economic difficulties, managed to bring about an improvement in the ratio. But the ratio is a global statistic that tends to hide deficiencies in staffing in some schools and in some areas—subject areas and deprived areas. There is still plenty of room for improvement in the staffing standards in many of our schools.
Hon. Members were earlier debating upstairs, in the Education (Scotland) (No. 2) Bill, the Warnock Committee's report. If the report is ever to be implemented, it is not good enough for the Government merely to lay down a legislative framework. They have to back up that legislative framework with adequate resources. The most valuable educational resource is a teacher. If we are positively to discriminate in favour of handicapped children, some physically handicapped, some mentally handicapped, and some perhaps both physically and mentally handicapped, this is very much related to teacher training—the training of teachers in general subjects and the training of specialist teachers who are devoted to the education of those children.
Instead of trying to encourage the colleges to train more teachers, whether specialist teachers or general teachers, the only response of this Government seems to be to axe two of the colleges of education in Scotland and try to pressurise Craiglockhart into merging with another college. There is an absense not only of educational justification but of any financial or economic justification. The Government have failed to produce credible figures showing the saving of public money. Even if there was a saving, which I doubt, how on earth can the Government afford to give out £3½ million to private fee-paying schools—an amount that could go towards more useful aspects of education, such as teacher training to help the education of those children to whom I have referred?
There is also a lack of justification on demographic grounds. Both the Hamilton college of education and Callandar Park college of education are situated in growth areas. It is no use the Secretary of State and his junior Ministers informing the House that the school children population of Scotland is likely to fall, that there will be fewerpupils in our schools, teachers and fewer students teachers, and that that these colleges should therefore be closed.
I take as an example the catchment area of Callendar Park, which includes my constituency. According to the Government's projections, the growth of population in that area will be 15·3 per cent. between 1978 and 1996 and the population of children under 4 years of age between 1978

and 1991 is expected to increase by over 37 per cent. Yet the Government propose to go ahead and close down a college of education in that growth area. By doing so they are proposing to cut the educational opportunities for today's children and the children who will be born in the next 10 years.
Not long ago I received an appeal from the staff and students of Callendar Park college addressed to all Members of Parliament. It mentioned some of the matters that I have referred to in my speech, including the broken promise of the Scottish Minister for Education., the disadvantaged children in Scotland, the areas of multiple deprivation and said that in Scotland the ratio of population to institutions offering teacher training was at present one per 480,000. The corresponding figure for England and Wales is one per 400.000. That statistic is disturbing, because Scotland has a greater proportion of rural areas and less densely-populated areas than England and Wales. Scotland should, therefore, have more colleges of education per head of population. If the closures take place, the proportion in Scotland will be one institution per 660,000 population.
The information that I received from the Callendar Park college contained further information about international comparative studies, pointing out that Scotland has the lowest provision of nursery education in the EEC, and the lowest rate of post-16 schooling in the United Kingdom, and the second lowest in the EEC, and so on.
When I read all the information that was sent to me my first impulse was to forward it to the Secretary of State for Scotland and appeal to him. However, many Labour Members are fed up with bringing matters to his attention and to the attention of his minions in the Scottish Office. All that we get is a kind of stereotyped Civil Service reply, with the Minister's autograph at the bottom. Many of my constituents are utterly disgusted when they see replies that come from the Scottish Office.
In this case, I was so disgusted that the Minister had broken his promise on the previous occasion that I thought that I should go to the very top. I reported the Minister to his boss, the Prime Minister. I wrote to her on 16 February, enclosing the petition from the students and staff of Callendar Park college. I did so for two reasons—first, because she is the useless head of this useless Government and, therefore, the boss of the Ministers at the Scottish Office, and surely the boss should know what subordinates are up to in failing to deliver their promises. I also wrote to her because her credibility is at stake in this whole sorry saga.
Not long ago, the Prime Minister—she was then Leader of the Opposition—came to Scotland and made a party political broadcast. I believe that my hon. Friend he Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) mentioned this in his speech. Unfortunately, I did not hear my hon. Friend's speech because I was upstairs in Committee considering the Education (Scotland) No. 2 Bill. I managed to get a transcript from the BBC, which I shall read to the House, because I should not like to misquote the Prime Minister. The interviewer was a man called George Birrell—he must be Scotland's answer to Robin Day. He said:
'Our conversation covered a wide range of topics affecting Scotland. Towards the end I asked Mrs. Thatcher specifically about the threat to axe up to four of Scotland's teacher training colleges.'
The Prime Minister replied:


'I'm not arguing that for the time being we have to cut down the number of teachers—I know we have. Cut down the number of new teachers in training. We accept that for the time being that has to be done, but the argument is about how do you go about it. The scheme that looks best on paper because it's tidy and neat, isn't always the best one in practice. It takes a long time to build up the reputation of a college—it can be destroyed easily. Again where those colleges are doing a very good job', let's keep them in being. I think sometimes it's better not to merge or to destroy colleges, but to say all right we'll keep them all going, because the more widely they are distributed, the more chance people who live near them have to go and train at them and still live at home. So it makes better human sense the way we're going about it than I believe the government scheme does.'
That was in 1977. I reminded the Prime Minister of her fine words at that time in the letter that I sent her last month. I also told her about the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland—the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and the promise that he failed to keep. Indeed, the credibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland is also at stake here, because he stood on a picket line along with my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart in 1977 to fight the proposals that were then put forward to close certain colleges of education.
I told the Prime Minister all that, but I am afraid that her reply was bitterly disappointing. She tried to justify her statement by saying:
Circumstances have changed considerably in the four years since I commented on the last Government's proposals to close colleges in Scotland. At that time the forecast was that the student population of teacher training colleges would fall to its lowest level of about 8,000 in 1979–80 and rise to about 12,000 by the end of the decade. The current forecast is that the number will continue to fall to less than 7,000 by 1983, and will not rise above 8,000 before the end of the 1980s. This is a very different situation, and I really do not consider it justifiable to retain as many as 10 separate colleges of educaton in Scotland, with all the disadvantages that involves in the spread of staffing and other resources. I am entirely in agreement with the Secretary of State's proposals and I am in no doubt that there will be ample capacity in the contracted system for the students who will need places.
Hon. Members can judge for themselves. I have quoted what the Prime Minister said four years ago and what she said last week. I am beginning to wonder whether anyone in this Government has any credibility. When the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister responsible for education in Scotland behave in that way what will people outside this Chamber think? No wonder some of them think that Members of Parliament

in particular, and politicians in general, are people whose promises should never be believed, because they fail to keep their promises. The Government are feeding the growth of hostility among the population, particularly as a result of their lack of credibility in connection with the college of education system.
The Prime Minister fails to say in her letter that the drop in the forecasts of the numbers of students in the colleges of education is the direct result of the impositions which the Government have placed on the colleges. The Government dictate the number of students which colleges are allowed to take. Many colleges would like to take more students and they may even have the necessary staff and accommodation. The Government are using the excuse of a recession which is made worse by last week's Budget, the public expenditure cuts and further cuts which will be on their way unless we get rid of the Government as soon as possible.
The Government are putting the whole of Scottish education in a financial straitjacket. They are destroying the opportunities, not only of the staffs and the students, but of Scottish children who will be born to future generations.
The Government seem hell-bent on one of the biggest acts of educational vandalism in the history of Scottish education. They have failed to have adequate consultation with the people most involved. I appeal to the Minister, even at this late date. One of the colleges—Craiglockhart—is in his constituency. I have no doubt that he has conversed with the people involved.
Even if Craiglockhart is saved and a solution is found which is acceptable to the Catholic hierarchy and the Catholic population, the Minister must also look again at Callendar Park and Hamilton colleges. Let us come to a sensible and reasonable solution. The best way to preserve what is good in our teacher training system is to continue with the 10-college system.
I hope that the Minister will report back to the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister and remind them that if they go ahead later this year and close the colleges they will be seen to be destroying a valuable part of Scottish education. They will also be destroying any vestige of credibility which this incredible and discredited Government may still have.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes to Nine o' clock.